Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball/Archive 6

Proposed new WikiProject College Sports (USA)
The creation of a new WikiProject has been proposed: WikiProject Council/Proposals/Collegiate sports (USA). The proposed purpose of this new WikiProject is


 * to bring a level of standardization of format to Wikipedia articles concerning college sports in the USA. This would include any articles about specific college sports . . .; those sports' seasons . . . and their championships. . .  It would include articles about the several collegiate sports governing associations (National Collegiate Athletic Association, National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics, National Christian College Athletic Association, United States Collegiate Athletic Association, National Junior College Athletic Association) and the various college conferences/leagues (i.e. Big Ten Conference, Ivy League, etc.).  It would also include the articles concerning the sports programs of the member institutions of the associations . . . any specific single-sport article for said institution (such as SIU Edwardsville Cougars baseball or SIU Edwardsville Cougars softball), and any single-season article for said sports (such as 2014 SIU Edwardsville Cougars softball team).  There is currently no standard format for creating and/or maintaining these pages.  The major areas of concern have been and continue to be articles describing collegiate conferences and member institutions' athletic programs.  Two articles describing two very similar schools or leagues can be a different as night and day, and when efforts have been made to standardize, those changes have often been met with resistance.

I think this needs to be very carefully examined. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion
Please participate in the following AfD: Articles for deletion/Georgios Tsalmpouris, Thanks! ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 02:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present). --Lucas559 (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Arkansas–Little Rock Trojans. Please participate on that page. Thank you. Corkythe  hornetfan  19:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of dunking and frontal face pictures from Jahlil Okafor except the main image
Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Arkansas–Little Rock Trojans → Little Rock Trojans article renaming discussion
There is a discussion at Talk:Arkansas–Little Rock Trojans in which you may be interested, on renaming the school's athletic articles per the school's recent attempt to rebrand the teams. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Battle on Broadway - Help discerning between UK and Kentucky State
There is a discussion at Talk:Battle On Broadway which might be of interest to who know, or wish to know, about Kentucky Wildcats basketball. Cake (talk) 03:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Answered there. It's a bit complicated, as I'm sure you surmised it would be. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on final image selection tweaks at Jahlil Okafor
After several discussions regarding warring over which images to include in Jahlil Okafor, we are holding what may be the concluding discussions regarding the possible reinsertion of 3 specific images and the removal of another. Join the discussion at Talk:Jahlil_Okafor.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:1933 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball navbox
Template:1933 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rikster2 (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:1932 Purdue Boilermakers men's basketball navbox
Template:1932 Purdue Boilermakers men's basketball navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rikster2 (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Notability of single season articles for women's basketball teams
There is a situation going on at AfD right now that I think it would be wise for the members of this project to address. In the past, this project has generally supported the idea that the coverage of NCAA D-I men's basketball is significant and widespread enough to justify creating and maintaining stand-alone single-season articles for every single NCAA D-I men's basketball team. Over the past year or so, several editors have been applying the same rationale to women's basketball, and have been creating stand-alone single-season articles for NCAA D-I women's basketball teams, as well. One of these articles has now been challenged at AfD (see here), and the issue of whether any of these women's basketball single-season articles are even notable at all has been raised (FWFW, the article currently at AfD, as it currently stands, contains no references, at all). Note that while the article in question is from a "major" conference (though not a particularly strong team, historically), this same line of reasoning has also resulted in some mass piggybacking of articles for other, much lower-profile D-I programs as well (like this and this). Does the coverage of NCAA D-I women's basketball reach the point where we can automatically presume that every single season for every single D-I team is going to be significant enough to justify the mass creation of individual, stand-alone season articles? Please comment here. Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm skeptical whether every mid-major men's program actually meets GNG for a season article. Assume one local paper and maybe one national news service like AP covering.  If not more major sources, I'd say it doesnt meet it.  I'm pretty sure the coverage is just as sparse for some major conference women's teams.—Bagumba (talk) 01:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

conference navbox up for deletion
Template:United States Collegiate Ski and Snowboard Association (USCSA) is up for deletion if anybody would like to participate in the discussion.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Two questions about templates
Some time ago I created an article by starting with an existing article and making changes. I received a message that the INFOBOX template I was using was deprecated. I don't recall the name of the template. I recently created an article Sharon Dawley using Infobox college coach. I notice that it has a hidden category "Articles using Template:Infobox college coach with deprecated parameters". Two questions:
 * 1) Is Infobox college coach the current preferred template for a college basketball coach?
 * 2) What does the hidden category message mean?-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  16:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There was a couple of parameters specified for Dawley that are no longer used, so I removed them. I updated the doc at Category:Articles_using_Template:Infobox_college_coach_with_deprecated_parameters to enumerate which params are being tracked.—Bagumba (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As for which template to use, I'd personally prefer we move to Infobox basketball biography, like we do for all college players already. Aside from coaches that coach multiple sports, I'm not sure why this couldn't happen.—Bagumba (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

{{od}Thanks for that information. I think that was what the person had recommended to me. I'm still struggling with whether this is a step in the right direction.

The college coach infobox has an entry for sport. The basketball biography does not. Isn't this pretty basic information that belongs in an infobox?

The basketball biography does not have an alt field. I confess I don't use it all that much but I thought it was virtually a requirement for GA and FA articles. I see that Michael Jordan is an FA so maybe not.

I don't see a title field. I see that some people are using the position field to indicate title but that sounds like a kludge. What's the harm in having the proper field? Most notable coaches are head coaches but occasionally an individual became notable as a player and then became an assistant coach or an associate head coach. That's not really a position, it's a title.

There's no field for conference. How do you identify the conference? Is this viewed as information not important enough for an infobox? I'd be happy just tart using it and even migrate some of the college coach templates to the biography template, but at present the migration would require dropping some information and/or cramming it into the wrong place.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Basketball biography works pretty well for college coaches in my opinion. Conference is in the league field and there is a "career position" field for their playing position. You can look at Kevin Ollie and Steve Alford for examples of coaches with significant playing careers. Personally, I don't think a field for "spirt" is all that important. Usually pretty obvious from the the article in my opinion. Rikster2 (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I know there is a fair amount of disagreement about info boxes. Some see value in designing them in a way that they can be easily reused by third-party information providers. I don't think that's the most important function, I mainly want them to be useful to readers, but in many cases we can eat our cake and have it too. A third-party reuser of an infobox might not find it easy to identify the sport. Is there any harm in having an optional field for this information? More importantly, a conference is not a league. Why should we shoehorn information into the wrong field simply because someone might be able to figure out what you mean? Why not simply include the correct field? To put it more bluntly, would there be any opposition to adding fields for conference, title and sport to this template?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We can make aliases for parameters if it's important enough to people. For example, specify "league" or "conference", but not both. They would both be displayed the same in either case. "League" is not as common in the college domain, but it's sometimes used.  See this Pac-12 article that mentions "league coaches".. As far as "sport", I know there is always a natural resistance to not have something that was once there, but I also find it inconsistent why sport is needed for a coach, but not a player, assuming they only played one sport. I don't know if I care either way, but I'd prefer we just stay consistent.—Bagumba (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've edited quite a few templates, but I am far less experienced than you, so please forgive me if my questions are naïve. While I think it is likely that a player or coach will have a league or a conference but not both, I'm not quite following why you want to make an alias. What's the harm in having a league field and a conference field and displaying whichever has a non-blank entry?
 * I'm not following your point that sport is needed for a coach but not a player. I think it's useful for both. Someone might respond "it's a basketball biography, so the sport is basketball, duh" but I can easily imagine a third-party interested in downloading all biographies of only men's basketball players or all biographies of only women's basketball players or possibly both. But if we don't have a field in which to enter men's basketball or women's basketball, how can someone download only the biographies they desire? I suppose someone might figure out how to do it with a combination of the infobox in the category but why make it so difficult when we can make it easy?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion re: "alias". We could have league or conference supplied, and the appropriate header would be displayed.  Only one would be displayed, and it would be right after "Position". As for sport, what I meant is that infoboxes for pro athletes on en.wiki generally haven't had a field for sport. I have notice that some other languages  display a logo for the athlete's sport.—Bagumba (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I really don't agree that "conference" is needed in addition to "league" - it absolutely is the same thing. And in my opinion "position" is the same as "title." There is a position one "plays" (players) and a position one "holds" (like "head coach" or assistant coach). To me adding extra fields isn't worth the slight difference. Adding "sport" makes more sense to me as this is new information. Rikster2 (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Frances Pomeroy Naismith Award
Did this award officially become defunct after the 2013–14 season? Jrcla2 (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure it was discontinued after that. Rikster2 (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Iona Gaels basketball history
Hi, I'm editing Warren Isaac's article and find myself a bit stumped on his college days. He played for Iona Gaels men's basketball between 1962 and 1965 and broke quite a few of their records but I can't understand what conference (if any) they were playing in or which NCAA division. Their history on the wikipedia article starts only in 1980 with their joining the newly founded Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference. There's a mention of a Middle Eastern Conference, maybe also part of the Eastern College Athletic Conference and in the College division (Name Mulvey To ECAC's All-East Team), another of a MECAA race (Iona Faces St. Peter's). It says he was "among major college performers this season" in 1964-65 (Iona Five Wins Finale; Isaac ends with 1,341) yet he also played against Bates that seem to have always been a very minor college, though I understand that college teams play outside their division (Isaac, Bialosuknia Tabbed All-Americas). Would appreciate any help, I must admit that I'm not that knowledgeable about the collegiate game but I want to put his college records in perspective. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The NCAA men's basketball record book is the best source for this information. There is a fairly detailed conference section (linked here) that may answer your question. According to the record book, Iona has been Division I since 1954. During that time, it appears they joined their current conference (the MAAC) in 1982 and were a member of the short-lived Metropolitan Collegiate Conference from 1966 to 1969. Other than that, I believe that they were an independent. This does marry up with my memory of the school in the 1970s, I seem to remember their independence when the late Jim Valvano led them to some national success. The ECAC isn't/wasn't a conference per se. It's a looser collection of regionally-located schools who could and usually did belong to other leagues, similar to a regional alliance. It was common for schools to not have a conference affiliation prior to the 1970s/1980s, at which time there was an explosion of new conferences founded. This was due to the increasing role of television (conferences can more easily negotiate TV deals) and ease of entry into the NCAA tournament. In the 1950s probably half the division I schools were independent (maybe more), today I believe there is one independent. Rikster2 (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the answer. I had doubts about the ECAC too, and I guess the MECAA must be some sort of unofficial championship (like metropolitan New York or something similar). Just one last question sorry, what would be the most common way of writing the division, it was at the time divided into University and College divisions, Iona would be in the University division so should it be "in the NCAA University Division", "in the NCAA University Division" or "NCAA Division I" (though that last one would be rewriting history). --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "NCAA University Division" should be fine. The current numbered divisions were established in 1973. Rikster2 (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

New user's articles
Editors of WP:CBBALL might want to keep an eye on this user's new articles. I'm skeptical some of these coaches are notable. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Standard date format
Now that the schedule template has been reformatted (which looks great), I think it would be a good idea to set a standard date format across team pages. I have seen a wide variety in formatting, including (for example):
 * January 2, 2015
 * January 2nd, 2015
 * Jan 2, 2015
 * Jan. 2, 2015
 * Jan 2nd, 2015
 * 1/2/2015
 * 1/2/15

In my opinion, the m/d/yy or m/d/yyyy options are not favorable as it can be confusing depending on the locale (some places use d/m/yy). That leaves us with the written out month options. Part of the effort of the new template design was to save horizontal space. At first, I thought that using a shortened month would save column space. However, because in the same cell as the date, the time and TV information for the game is under the date, this change usually results in minimal, if any saved space. As for the ordinal on the day value, I don't have a strong opinion if it should be included or not. Zach Pepsin (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Never use ordinals for dates per MOS:BADDATEFORMAT.—Bagumba (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * In all articles written in American English -- and that presumably includes all college basketball articles -- dates written in the main body text or other prose should only use the so-called MDY format in near-universal use in the United States (e.g., January 1, 2015). Per WP:MOS, ordinals (e.g., 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 10th, 31st) should never be used in dates.  Dates used in tables (e.g., season schedules) may use one of the shorter forms, such as "Jan. 1, 2015," but all-number dates are generally disfavored because of the confusion over dates such as "1/2/15" being read by our international readership as either "1 February 2015" or "January 2, 2015".  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I appreciate the clear response. I completely understand and agree with your points.  Is this important enough to have a set standard?  As I stated before, in my observations writing out the full month name usually makes minimal difference on the column size, if any difference at all.  Zach Pepsin (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * These points are already covered by the Manual of Style page on the subject, MOS:DATE. The short-form dates are sometimes helpful in space-limited tables, etc., but not always, as you noted.  It's usually relatively easy to link to the specific subsection of MOS:DATE when you are explaining date formatting to someone else.  If you ever have any date format questions, please feel free to ping me or leave a message on my user talk page.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It was my understanding when the template was changed back in May that the standard format would be of the style "Jan 2". Given that the 2015–16 season (for example) runs from November 2015 through April 2016, it's pretty obvious what the year will be, so you don't need to include that at all. I don't personally have a preference for the full month versus the shortened month, but the whole reason the template was updated in the first place was to compress the table to make it more accessible to those whose monitors couldn't fit the old style, so I would lean towards the shortened month word. Puritan Nerd 19:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, the full month format does not extend the width of the table cell a significant amount, if at all, in the new style schedule template. This is due to the second line of the date column containing time and TV information.  As for the year, I would challenge that because the season extends over a 2 calendar year time frame, that itself is part of what makes it even more necessary that the year be included in the dates.Zach Pepsin (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Puritan Nerd that the abbreviated month is preferable because it keeps the table from being elongated unnecessarily. It also fits with MOS:DATEFORMAT. Ncjon (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * May you please address my point that the full date format does not elongate the cells? This is because once the time and TV information is entered in the schedule, the dates are generally no longer the longest width of text in the column.  In the cases that they are not, the difference in size is minimal.Zach Pepsin (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * While it may not "generally" elongate the boxes, you're acknowledging that there are circumstances where it will. Given that people access the content on many different size screens, it seems self-evident that we would want it to be as friendly as possible to those smaller screens. And none of this really matters since MOS:DATEFORMAT clearly suggests that abbreviations are preferred in tables and whatever a small handful of editors agrees to here - if consensus is reached at some point - should not contradict the Manual of Style. Ncjon (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Late, but I like "Nov. 25, 2015" . Actually, I think just "Nov. 25" looks best.  Too many commas otherwise.  ~  Richmond 96   T  •  C   03:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:1985–86 Metro Conference men's basketball standings
Template:1985–86 Metro Conference men's basketball standings has been TfD'd. Please see the discussion here. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

New image use
For the 2013-14 and 2014-15 season, I added images that I took at the McDonalds All-America game to team recruit sections. This year, I will also add the images to the conference preseason section like i did here unless there is a compelling reason why we should not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 19:28, 21 October 2015‎ (UTC)
 * Seems WP:UNDUE if you ask me. I get that some pictures can be argued to be better than no pictures, but returning established players, esp. ones on preseason watch lists, are usually a bigger story. Frankly, I'm not a big fan of side-by-side galleries in the middle of articles. I do Appreciate your contributions to WikiCommons.—Bagumba (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems we've head this discussion before at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_Basketball/Archive_5 Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_Basketball/Archive_5, so I'm not sure what is your desired result when past input is still outstanding.—Bagumba (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It does not seem like we had this discussion, since there was no input from anyone there. The only one with feedback, as I recall was the removals at Kansas. Well, I have added them to the 3 current conference articles (B1G, Pac-12 and SEC &mdash; ACC Big 12 and Big East have not been created yet), and most of last years conferences. I will hold off on the 2013 McDAAG images until I have more feedback. Also, that discussion was about a different set of images (not McDAAG images).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , Note that the content of some articles really welcomes these images. E.g., 2014–15 Big 12 Conference men's basketball season and 2015–16_Pacific-12_Conference_men's_basketball_season. This is the case where the images may not look as good in a stub, but in a good article, that is properly developed, the images may belong--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems undue to add a picture of Thomas Welsh like you just did to 2014–15 Pacific-12 Conference men's basketball season when he didn't play much, and wasn't even on the conference all-freshman team. A picture of a returning player that had impact like Norman Powell, who returned as a senior and earned All-Pac-12 honors, would seem more appropriate IMO.—Bagumba (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In terms of preseason sections, I am not sure it matters whether the player ends up playing a lot that season. MCDAA is MCDAA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * At the beginning of the season, I wouldn't care too much. By the end, it should only be ones that made an impact.  Otherwise, it seems out of place.  Photos are not a matter of fact, they should complement the article. FWIW, Rikster2 had similar comment at  below.—Bagumba (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This point is very interesting and may be a guiding light. I was thinking that if you were relevant as a highlight at the beginning of the season that the image should remain. That makes the Welch image of low relevance. In my mind, I was thinking if you had a class of MCDAAG players they are all relevant until they bust out have not made the NBA 5 years later).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * TonyTheTiger: Apologies. I linked the wrong discussion above.  I struck it out and underlined the one I intended.—Bagumba (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The last time we held this discussion where regs gave opinions was at this one Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_Basketball/Archive_4. You were sort of ambiguous on the one that you just pointed to.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The discussion I linked above was November 8, 2014, while the one you referenced here was April 12. Perhaps I'm not "regular" enough for you.  The reality is most discussions are lucky to get 2-4 participants without some serious prodding or without it being a lightning rod.—Bagumba (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You are most certainly a reg. BTW, the non-MCDAA images that were at issue in the other discussion that I said was not relevant are for images like those that I added to 2015–16 Nebraska Cornhuskers men's basketball team.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

List of Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball recruiting history
Thoughts? Jrcla2 (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * First, "list of Kentucky Wildcats recruiting history" makes no sense. It'd be either "list of recruits" or "recruiting history." Second, it is lazy to put this article together and start in 2010. Personally, I don't think this article needs to exist, but if it does it needs to be more thoughtfully named and written. Rikster2 (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And if you go back in time, is it any new player that is not a walk-on? It quickly becomes List of Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball players, which will be a high percentage of non-notable players, WP:RECENTISM aside.—Bagumba (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We could arguably limit it to blue links. WP:CSC mentions List of Norwegian musicians, and its lead is a simple "This is a list of Norwegian musicians notable enough for Wikipedia articles."  Once we have one though, you know editors will be churning out lists for every school no matter how "notable" their program is or how small the list is.  I see it being a useful list, but we have to accept the crappy lists that will inevitably be created; we'd have to deal with the work AfDing them, or just be prepared to ignore them (or purgatory in between)—Bagumba (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I just don't think this is worthy of a stand-alone article or list. Rikster2 (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

McDAAG image in team articles
We have been through this before. I just want to confirm that we want to consistently include the McDonalds All-American images in the team season articles. I have just noticed that the UCLA images were removed by from 2014–15 UCLA Bruins men's basketball team and last year we had this debate at with  over 2014–15 Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball team. Since two of last years teams with McD AA players resisted last year, I want to make sure we want our readers to expect this consistently since we have the images for all players in the games for the last three years.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "we want to consistently include the McDonalds All-American images in the team season articles.": Was there consensus on this before in a past discussion? If not, WP:SILENCE is the weakest form of consensus. Per WP:BRD, if an editor gets reverted, it's time to discuss.  When I have photos that I have taken removed, I usually respect it, as I allow that I may have a conflict of interest in liking my own photos too much.—Bagumba (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The last time we had opinions on the matter was Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_Basketball/Archive_4.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. I have less concerns on team article than on conference article. Rockchalk in the link said in the end: " I still don't think it should be, but I won't argue with a consensus." UCLA90024 is indef blocked, so you're unlikely to hear from them.—Bagumba (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree they shouldn't be in the conference article unless they win an award of some kind (e.g. Player of Freshman of the Year) Rikster2 (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * what about last years B1G group that sort of dominared FotW for the conference.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't freshmen always dominate Freshman of the Week honors? I'd say maybe add a picture of Myles Turner with the caption "Myles Turner was the conference Freshman of the Year for the season." I don't really see the need to have 5-6 player pictures in a conference season article. Rikster2 (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes Freshman would dominate FOTW, but the Freshman MCDAAG alums that we have pictures of might not necessarily do so. I am talking about 2014–15_Big_Ten_Conference_men's_basketball_season, where D'Angelo Russell had 7 FOTWs, Melo Trimble had 3 and James Blackmon, Jr. had 2. Those three all ended up on the 2015 B1G All-Freshman Team at 2014–15_Big_Ten_Conference_men's_basketball_season. What about the 3 image multiple image in that case?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My main point is that that's too many pictures for a conference article in my opinion. Rikster2 (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that only the POTY and FOTY should have their pictures in a conference season article? What about COTY? That would also be 3 images.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, what I am saying is every player who played in the conference doesn't need his photo in the article and making the All-Freshman team isn't something that in my mind means the HAVE to be in the article. Like most things in life, there isn't a hard and fast rule, it's more art than science. Look, I like pictures in articles, but part of my take on this might be that I don't find how Wikipedia displays all that friendly to a lot of photos unless the article is REALLY long. For instance, I added the tri-captains of the 2014–15 Virginia Cavaliers men's basketball team to the article (seemed relevant to the season) and no matter how you format it it looks terrible either in a browser or on a mobile device. Rikster2 (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think images are limited by the amount of text in the article, unless there is consensus to start galleries. Generally, I wouldn't expect freshman pictures to dominate an article, unless they were all-conference.  Due weight, which admittedly can be difficult since we are limited in free pictures we have.—Bagumba (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , Do you mean text or content? The section at 2014–15_Big_Ten_Conference_men's_basketball_season has little text but a lot of content. I think there is solid content real estate for the 3 McDAA images in this section where the FOTW content is. The images would support the content. I guess that is also a strong argument against the images that I slapped in conference articles that had no preseason section.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't account for lists. Yes, content.—Bagumba (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

College colors
You are invited to join the discussion at Module talk:College color/data regarding the maintenance of college colors used on pages related to this project.—Bagumba (talk) 06:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Naming question
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Long Beach State Dirtbags baseball regarding the name of the article. Thanks! Corkythe hornetfan  20:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:San Jose State Spartans athletic director navbox
Template:San Jose State Spartans athletic director navbox has been nominated for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 06:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:CFB
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football and assist in this if you can. Thank you! Jrcla2 (talk) 14:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The time is now for images
As pointed out above, there was no response at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_Basketball/Archive_5. In the B1G, I have added incoming recruit images at 2015–16 Nebraska Cornhuskers men's basketball team, 2015–16 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team, 2015–16 Iowa Hawkeyes men's basketball team and 2015–16 Northwestern Wildcats men's basketball team. I will be going through my images before the season starts in 3 weeks and adding files to incoming recruit sections where I have images.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am Ok with incoming freshman pictures in the recruiting section. A practice I have sometimes seen but don't agree with is adding pictures of those who are "departures" from the season before. I don't believe these folks are relevant enough to the season to warrant more than the line in the departures section that says they are gone and where they went. Rikster2 (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * O.K. I think I am spent (in terms of non-MCDAAG images) with 2015–16 Rice Owls men's basketball team, 2015–16 Colorado State Rams men's basketball team and 2015–16 Toledo Rockets men's basketball team for now. I guess, I have added departure pictures for 2013–14 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team and 2014–15 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, which are both at WP:GAC. Let's see what kind of feedback we get. I also have one at 2015–16 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Why did you add "departure" pictures to those articles? As I said in my comment above, those players are no longer relevant to the season. Tony, IMO this is over-stacking photos and my preference would be those pictures go. I am doing you the courtesey of not going over there and just taking them down without discussion, but that was my first impulse. Rikster2 (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless the reviewer is versed in basketball or sports, I don't it's likely they will have the insight on this that Rikster2 provided, who I also agree with on this point. If you want constructive feedback, there it is.—Bagumba (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * &, After going back and forth on whether to include departure images, I have totally redesigned the layout of the images at 2014–15_Michigan_Wolverines_men's_basketball_team. They constitute less than a third of the images but do illustrate the article. Given the current layout and lack of complications to it, I don't think it would be an improvement to remove these images.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I still do not think these should be in the article. It is a matter of relevance for that season. None of those guys suited up for the Wolverines that season - it was only a story before the season began. Rikster2 (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Photos are fine at 2013–14_Michigan_Wolverines_men%27s_basketball_team, but seem undue in 2014–15 article.—Bagumba (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, I like seeing pictures that I took appear on WP and 4 of the 5 images at issue are from me, but in the presence of 13 other images, I don't see the undue weight. The loss of key players is a prominent enough element of the article to be a lead sentence on one of the two paragraphs in the WP:LEAD. The images are not illustrating a trivial fact from the article.The departures section mentions the lost players. Note the extensive issues at 2014–15_Michigan_Wolverines_men's_basketball_team regarding loss of players. The loss of players is prominent in the content of the article. I have had images yanked before. It would leave the article with 13 pictures taken by me. If you believe what said above about "I don't believe these folks are relevant enough to the season to warrant more than the line in the departures section" then delete the Post-tournament predictions subsection and yank the images that illustrate current content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Tony, did you or did you not write the majority of those sections? If you want we can discuss how often Tim Hardaway Jr should appear in the Michigan article the year after he leaves or you can just accept that many people might think picture space for departed players isn't necessary. Those pictures all appear on other articles, don't they? Rikster2 (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hardaway does get one mention in the article, but it is almost gratuitous. Yes the images appear elsewhere, but the 2014–15_Michigan_Wolverines_men's_basketball_team and 2014–15_Michigan_Wolverines_men's_basketball_team content both belong in the article. We have images to illustrate this content. Do you really believe what you said about "I don't believe these folks are relevant enough to the season to warrant more than the line in the departures section". I.e., do yuou feel the Post-tournament predictions section is irrelevant?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I really believe what I said and it is irritating that you will not listen. I am resisting the urge to just delete as bold edits, but I'm not sure how much longer I will do so. Rikster2 (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, it's fine to have a short "predictions" section and a concise list of departures, but that doesn't mean these HAVE to be illustrated. Rikster2 (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, I was listening. However, you have been talking in circles. First you say it should only mention these subjects in a departures section. I invite you to delete the predictions section. Then you say a predictions section is O.K. It is probably as irritating to me to try to listen as it is to you to try to express yourself. Sorry I tuned out for a few days. Been working in other spaces. If a subject is mentioned in the lead and two other sections of the article, I am not going to run around deleting pictures that illustrate that subject.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that the pics have been deleted. Have at it. Like I said, I am not going to run around deleting pics that illustrate content that is notable enough for the WP:LEAD, but there are a lot of folks who think I use too many of my own pics. I don't really agree with you, but I don't have the sophistication to argue about images based on photographic quality, don't have the energy to argue based on relevance, and don't have sufficient lackeys to argue based on whether I can get people to back me up when I talk in circles.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

CBB Schedule Template: Proposal to bold opponent names
I was wondering what people thought about modifying the schedule entry template to automatically bold opponent names in order to provide more emphasis on the most important information: the team's opponent. Currently, the schedule table, while vastly improved, still contains a bounty of information that may sometimes cause the opponent name to get lost in the shuffle. I am thinking that bolding the opponent name would differentiate the opponent from all other information and allow the table to be more effective at a glance. Take a look at the comparison below and let me know what you think. Cc:   ~  Richmond 96   T  •  C   01:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * What would the purpose of the bolding be? It's supposed to draw attention to items, but if all are bolded you aren't getting that. Rikster2 (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The attention would be to the opponent names over all other info such as date, time, stadium, score, etc. ~  Richmond 96   T  •  C   01:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * IMO win/loss is the most important information. Fbdave (talk) 02:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - I think it's pretty clear already and I'm not a fan of bolding (or capitalization) just for the heck of it. Rikster2 (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose – I don't think it adds anything. The new template is better than the old one and bolding the opponent does not add much if anything. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose as it doesn't add value. The win/loss is more important, and it isn't like it's difficult to read right now. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the comments everyone. Just wanted to throw the idea out there.  ~  Richmond 96   T  •  C   05:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Creighton Bluejays women's basketball coach navbox
Template:Creighton Bluejays women's basketball coach navbox has been nominated for deletion. Please see the discussion at Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 26. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 05:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

D II coach infobox syntax
I am creating Patrick Beilein and am unsure how to handle the infobox. I believe that we assume DI head coach unless otherwise noted so I have noted DII seasons. Is this correct?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The infobox or the record table? D2 doesn't necessarily need to be in the infobox, but it should be specified in the article and probably on the record table. Rikster2 (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not proper form to note division in player, coach, or admin fields of Template:Infobox college coach. And in the head coaching record tables, division should be explicitly stated only in the case that the team in question was an independent, e.g. Jeff Monken. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Second question on the same article. Have I overweighted John Beilein in the LEAD?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Naming of the article
What's everyone's opinion on Texas A&M-Commerce Lions Basketball (Men and Women) name? Besides the WP:MOS and endash problem, I'm thinking either A) They should be split into Texas A&M–Commerce Lions men's basketball & Texas A&M–Commerce Lions women's basketball, or B) Keep the more notable article. An editor (User:Fkbowen) has created it and looks as if they are mainly focusing on the men's team. Thoughts? 🎄 Corkythe hornetfan  🎄 19:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll let others decide on the notability of the topics, but WP:AVOIDSPLIT would be applicable here (thats the name of the shortcut, not that you have to avoid it in this case). If it stays as the single article, remove "Men and Women" from the title, as the generic name would allow for both to be covered.  Can also redirect the individual men and women's title to the general article if the decision is not to split.—Bagumba (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Letter of intent for 2016–17
National Letter of Intents for 2016–17 was added by some editors for 2015–16 UCLA Bruins men's basketball team. Seems irrelevant to this current season, so I'm inclined to just create 2016–17 UCLA Bruins men's basketball team and move it there. Seems to meet WP:CRYSTAL that "anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred". However, I though I'd see how strict others might be about creation of future articles with verifiable info like this.—Bagumba (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, next year's recruits are if no significance to this season. I don't think we need next season's UCLA season article yet, though. Seems like people can just hold off on the future recruit info since we aren't even 24 hours into THIS season. Rikster2 (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the type of info usually added by IPs, who are never going to know about project agreements. While it could be deleted, I see more benefits in applying WP:PRESERVE and putting the verifiable info in a future season article that will inevitably be created anyways.  Deleting it, or moving it into some holding place just creates undue work.—Bagumba (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I also found these past AfDs on future articles, Articles for deletion/2015–16 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team and Articles for deletion/2012–13 Long Island Blackbirds men's basketball team, where consensus was to keep as long as there is verifiable information (like NLIs).—Bagumba (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Navboxes and WP:BIDIRECTIONAL
For those interested in navboxes, there is an RfC about the use of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL that you may want to participate in at Wikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates.—Bagumba (talk) 07:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You're invited...
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Charles Erickson regarding if the issue of whether or not the two subjects involved are the same person. Thanks! 🎄 Corkythe hornetfan  🎄 02:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:College men's basketball seasons in the United States
I was wondering if we should sub-categorize these into NCAA Division I, II, and III? It might be easier to access the relevant seasons first, but I wanted to see if others feel that way (we'd put the Division I-equivalent historical seasons in that category, obviously). Jrcla2 (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that makes sense, generally. It may be worth taking a look at Category:College football seasons to see how that's organized. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable.—Bagumba (talk) 23:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Linking team article from team-season article
Where is Michigan Wolverines men's basketball suppose to be linked in an article like 2013–14 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team? Is it suppose to be linked in the bolded part of the first sentence?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that a good place, and it's also linked at the top of the infobox. By the way, I'm pretty sure that we came to a consensus that infoboxes should not include scores (rather "NCAA Tournament, Round of 64") and shouldn't include conference tournament results if the team didn't win it.  Some of the Michigan articles need to be cleaned up to comply with this.  Just wanted to let you know in case you see me making these edits soon.  ~  Richmond 96   T  •  C   17:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The bold practice in most sports articles goes against MOS:BOLDTITLE. See the "2011 Mississippi River floods" example about avoiding redundancy.  Also see the "Babe Ruth Award" example about not linking in bolded titles.  If someone has the energy, maybe we can change all the seasons for one school and adopt it as a project standard that is consistent with MOS.—Bagumba (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So what would be the correct way to go about it? The way we have it now, or something like "The Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team's 2013–14 season..."? ~  Richmond 96   T  •  C   18:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus can decide what is "correct for this project. The current lead sentence of "The 2013–14 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team represented the University of Michigan during the 2013–14 NCAA Division I men's basketball season." unnecessarily repeats 2013-14, Michigan and basketball and sounds awkward and trivial, which is presumably done merely to bold the title.  The title is already fairly descriptive, so repeating the obvious sounds contrived.  So if we don't need to waste the first sentence on that, what should it say? Determining what key terms to link requires that we identify what type of reader we are targeting. Do we need basic things like college basketball? Is University of Michigan needed, or is Michigan Wolverines sufficient as that article explains the relationship to the university.  Should the lead sentence be standard for all article, or should it identiify a key accomplishment. Those are some of the things to decide. Here's one example that it at least not redundant: "The 2013–14 men's college basketball team of the Michigan Wolverines were the Big Ten Conference regular season champions."—Bagumba (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , you still have not worked the link at issue into the LEAD and I am not sure that we should link to the general conference page rather than the basketball season page for the conference. P.S. we may need a new template for conference basketball season that serves the same purpose as cbb link.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As I suggested earlier, we need to "identify what type of reader we are targeting". Perhaps the team's men's hoops page and the specific conference season is the level we want. I wouldn't object.  However, the guiding principle should be to avoid being redundant and repeat the same terms from the title, which is pretty universal right now on sports season articles.—Bagumba (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that we should also be able to develop some uniformity.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Preseason classics in team templates
Has there been consensus to exclude events like Champions Classic and Crossroads Classic from basketball program templates? I don't see them being included.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No this hasn't been discussed as far as I'm aware. If both of those events are exclusive to those respective four teams, then I wouldn't have a problem with the tournaments being included on team navboxes (see Dixie Classic). Jrcla2 (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Move Pacific-12 Conference to Pac-12 Conference
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pacific-12_Conference regarding the proposed move of Pacific-12 Conference to Pac-12 Conference.—Bagumba (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Marginal player
I have been identifying sources for my next marginally notable biography (forthcoming soon) that will pass WP:GNG. But I just stumbled upon a potential speedy candidate. I am sort of lazy in this regard given my limited WP time. Does Abdul-Malik Abu warrant a page?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Coverage of academics in conference articles
You are invited to join a discussion regarding the due coverage of academics in relation to a college conference article at Talk:Pacific-12 Conference.—Bagumba (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the nonsensical use of dashes instead of hyphens
Sometime in the past year or so, I've noticed that college basketball articles have been titled with dashes (–) instead of hyphens (-), following the format "20xx[dash]xx NCAA team men's basketball season". Why on earth would you put a dash there instead of a hyphen? Most keyboards don't have a dash button, whereas the hyphen button is easily accessible. Now when I type out "2015-16" into a Wikipedia search box, it doesn't offer any useful suggestions because all the articles are titled with dashes. Before, I could type "2015-16 Michigan" and it would suggest to me the relevant articles, and I wouldn't have to type it out. Now, even if I cumbersomely type out "2015-16 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team", it won't even take me to the page because it's titled with a frickin dash! Please, end this madness. Ostealthy (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's part of Wikipedia's Manual of Style, specifically at MOS:NDASH. A redirect should typically be created to handle the title with hyphens. AFAICS, 2015-16 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team should already handle the hyphen.—Bagumba (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Then there really needs to be a script that automatically creates said redirect pages. Most of the lesser known pages do not yet have one. For example, getting to Milwaukee's page requires me to type "2015-16 Milwaukee Panthers men's basketball season" (with no suggestions, by the way, so I needed to know the correct mascot myself) and then finding the link in the search. Ostealthy (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you know that Wikipedia operates on volunteers like yourself. If you are inclined, you could make a request for a bot to perform these changes (not sure if bots can create redirects or not), or file a request for bug fix/improvement of the platform at .  Or you could volunteer to manually to create these redirects.  Finally, you can also discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style if you were interested in changing consensus.  Sorry, I don't have a simpler solution.—Bagumba (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I used to create redirects for a lot of these pages before I shifted to doing the vast majority of my editing on an iPad. Cutting and pasting, etc. aren't always that easy in mobile mode and this creation of redirects has been more trouble than it's worth so I stopped doing it. Rikster2 (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you need a dash while you are typing you can use .  Ex.: 201516 North Florida Ospreys men's basketball team produces 201516 North Florida Ospreys men's basketball team.  ~  Richmond 96   T  •  C   00:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Standardize conference pages' facility sections
See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College baseball.

Discussion about overview maps for US collegiate athletic conferences
A discussion on the Project College Football talk page has been created to discuss the proper format of the overview maps that are used for the US collegiate athletic conference pages.

If you're interested, please join the discussion here: Athletic conference overview maps and their lack of consistency

DragoLink08: ANI discussion regarding requested range blocks
Gentlemen, Cuchullain and I have filed ANI reports regarding User:DragoLink08's continued disruptive editing and sock-puppetry. I have also requested appropriate range blocks for the University of South Florida IP addresses that have provided him with an escape hatch to continue his sock-puppetry for the past three years. Many of you have had to deal with Drago's disruptive editing of the color schemes for navboxes, infoboxes and tables. Your input at ANI is requested. Dirtlawyer1 (talk)

"New" vs. "old" Big East for basketball articles
Please take part in a discussion on this at Talk:Big East Conference. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk)

2015–16 seasons
I just finished adding all D1 2015–16 seasons to the project, looks like 2015–16 Cal State Northridge Matadors men's basketball team is the only D1 program without a page created. Anybody want to tackle it? I was surprised how many programs weren't already added, including #1 Mich st. Littlekelv (talk) 08:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

next season articles
When can we make articles for next seasons teams?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * conference season champs let alone conference tournaments and post season tournaments haven't even been decided or even started, jumping the gun to the next season shouldn't be a thought right now. Littlekelv (talk) 08:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Tony, our rule of thumb at WikiProject College football is to wait for the completion of a given season before creating articles for the next year. I think that's a good rule for team season articles for all sports.  So, we shouldn't be creating 2016–17 articles until April. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There was a related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_Basketball/Archive_6. I wouldn't start articles for the sake of creating a placeholder with no meaningful content, but I think it's reasonable if there is verifiable and meaningful info per WP:CRYSTAL that "anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred".—Bagumba (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Weiss: there is no good reason to create the next season's article before the present season is over. For college basketball, the complete schedule is usually not available until the spring or summer.  Moreover, most if not all of the information that is verifiable about the next season is already included in the main team article.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Notability of Pac-12 tourney broadcasters
Can use additional input to reach a consensus at the twice relisted Articles for deletion/List of Pacific-12 Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters‎‎. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Paradise Jam
Was just starting to split the Paradise Jam Tournament into separate years like i did in the past with the Diamond Head Classic. After getting 2015 finished I'm now wondering if it should be split from mens and womens since both participate. The main page wasn't split by sex and thought it would be an easy cleanup just moving each year to it's own page. Thoughts anybody? Littlekelv (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Now I just found this stand alone page 2009 US Virgin Islands Paradise Jam (women) Littlekelv (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm fine with it.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

"winningest"
The propriety of using the word "winningest", and a related effort to excise the word from Wikipedia, is the subject of a discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. As the word is used in articles falling within the scope of this project, editors of this project may wish to participate either for or against the proposed removal. Cbl62 (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Listing top NBA draft pick in conference season articles' infoboxes
Some conference season articles like 2014–15 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season have the highest NBA draft pick from that season listed in the infobox. This seems like a case of WP:COATRACK to me, trivia that has little to do with the season itself that clutters an infobox. It's using top_pick from Infobox sports season, which is more suitable for an NBA or NFL season listing the top pick from that league's own draft. I'd recommend removing it from the infobox transclusions for college basketball.—Bagumba (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. The top_pick should be used in association with a league's draft, such as in 2005–06 NBA season. Fbdave (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Basketball players at the XXXX NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
This set of categories are currently being discussed for deletion. I would invite you to participate in this discussion regardless of your opinion on the matter. The discussion can be fond at Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 13. Thanks Rikster2 (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Y'all are invited
It has been requested that The Summit League be moved to Summit League per WP:THE and WP:COMMONNAME on the article's talk page. Please join the discussion. Thanks! ❄ Corkythe hornetfan  ❄ 23:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Big Ten statistical eligibility
Today, the B1G seems to have changed its statistical eligibility for the 3 point field goal percentage from 1 make per game to 2.5. See the overall stat leader page and the the conference game stat leader page. Yesterday, Aubrey Dawkins was third in overall and second in conference games despite a low quantity of shots and makes. Is it likely that this is a permanent change?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. note that in all prior years in the archives only 1 make per game was required for eligibility.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems that they have now reverted this change.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Naming of rounds in NCAA Tournament
The NCAA announced that the round of 64 teams will be referred to as "first round" as it was before 2011, and the play-in games will simply be called "First Four". Not sure to what extent changes were made for first round or second round on Wikipedia before this.—Bagumba (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Krzyzewski missed game
IPs have been making edits to Mike Krzyzewski and List of college men's basketball coaches with 600 wins (which is chronically dated and inconsistent anyway) to adjust Krzyzewski's W–L record per a game on February 2 against Georgia Tech that he missed due to illness. Jeff Capel III served as acting head coach for the game. My assumption here is that Krzyzewski is still the coach of record for this game since I don't believe there was any sort of official appointment for Capel as interim head coach. Anyone have more info or thoughts about this? Jweiss11 (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Coach K DOES NOT get the credit for this missed game, just like he didn't get the credit for the games he missed during the 94-95 season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:5966:42B0:E092:C89B:CDA9:A79C (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I've just traded emails with one of the sports information directors at Duke. He says that "That win goes to Coach K, per the NCAA statistical guidelines."  I think the guideline in question is located [here, page 8]: "In order for a coach to be credited with wins, losses or ties, that individual must be designated as the institution's head coach or interim head coach. Individuals serving on an advisory or preseason basis may not be credited with the wins, losses or ties. If the head coach is not present at a contest due to illness or other unexpected circumstances, or otherwise is unable to complete the sport season, it is the responsibility of the institution to determine, preferably prior to the contest, whether the win, loss or tie for that contest shall be credited to the head coach or to an interim or assistant coach. If the decision is made after the season is over, consider if the new coach influenced the team enough to make a difference in how the team performed (such as style of play). If a coach is no longer employed by the institution as the head coach, that coach can no longer be credited with further wins or losses after the day the relationship was terminated." Jweiss11 (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * To further Jweiss11's point, per a Fox Sports article: "School officials said during Tuesday's game that this result would go on Krzyzewski's record, win or lose. He improved to 1,034-316 overall and 961-257 in 36 years at Duke." Jrcla2 (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Josh Hart
With the season he is having, should Josh Hart (basketball) redirect to Josh Hart? Josh Hart is currently a redirect to a minor league baseball player. I would have to think the Villanova guard is more notable. Any thoughts? ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 22:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. It doesn't make sense for a redirect to be a primary topic over a standalone article.—Bagumba (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Additions of NIT to school infobox
has recently added NIT champion parameters to Template:Infobox college basketball team. I'm sure it's a decent achievement for some schools and it used to be the main tourney back in the day, but do we generally want more clutter in the infobox? We already have fields for each round of the NCAA tourney, which itself is overkill. Now UCLA Bruins men's basketball has NIT as well.—Bagumba (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems like overkill to me. I also think the NCAA second round/Round of 32 should come out as well. Ncjon (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with Ncjon, that is overkill. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And the NWIT/WNIT never was a first-tier tournament for the women's teams. It was the AIAW Tournament, which was superseded by the NCAA Women's Tournament starting in 1983.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Honestly I don't think anything but a post season tournament title should be in the infobox for tournament/championship wins except for conference regular season championships. All the specifics of the seasons and success should be in the article. The infobox should only include a list of a tournament/championship titles won(conference season, conference tournament, NCAA, NIT, CIT, and CBI).Littlekelv (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree with this. Total NCAA tourney appearances, Sweet Sixteens, Elite Eights, and Final Fours are all significant metrics of historical success for D-I CBB programs, and the current infobox facilitates quick comparisons of these metrics across different pages. The inclusion of this info satisfies every criterion for infoboxes, and I see nothing at all to be gained by removing it. João Do Rio (talk) 04:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the recent NIT additions. Discussion can continue of removing other rounds.—Bagumba (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Basketball players at the 2015 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four deletion
How did Category:Basketball players at the 2015 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four get deleted without any other category in Category:NCAA Men's Division I Final Four basketball players by year being deleted?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Because no one here joined the discussion except for Bagumba and me. If the project doesn't care enough to to weigh in then it should go, but somebody who wanted it gone should CfD the others, cause I'm sure not going to. Stupid decision as there are hundreds of category's like this (eg "Gymnasts at the 2012 Summer Olympics") Rikster2 (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Deleting just the 2015 category seems pretty silly to me. That's why I always advocate a class-based approach to CFDs and TFDs, where applicable.  That being said, I would lean toward deleting the entire class of these categories. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Where is the original discussion?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * it is linked above on this Talk page where I asked for people to come weigh in when the discussion was live. Rikster2 (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Division championships non-notable
Project participants may be interested in this edit where an editor is edit-warring to remove division championships from the article's infobox because "Divisional championships are non-notable, especially for a team with 59 conference titles and 5 national titles." ElKevbo (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with that editor. I don't believe that any program, let alone a perennial power such as Kansas, should call out divisional titles in the infobox. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I also agree that divisional titles are non-notable and should be left out of the info boxes. Ncjon (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree as well. Info boxes are about making choices to use space effectively, not to contain every minor accomplishment Rikster2 (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Please ensure the documentation and example(s) for the infobox reflects this consensus. ElKevbo (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? Jrcla2 (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * He means disable the ability to display this stuff and spell it out in the template documentation. Rikster2 (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

D1 Women's Team Pages
I've been dabbling in D1 women's team pages, most are a mess. Didn't know if this would be a project we as a group would want to take on. There is a lot to do i understand but most women's programs don't have a page let alone a navbox. Littlekelv (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I created a group WikiProject Basketball/Women's basketball which is still far too small. I don't follow this page as closely as I do the task force pages.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for showing me that group . It definitely is in it's infancy stage. already added myself. Littlekelv (talk) 22:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Reminder on new parameters for Template:CBB schedule entry
Hey folks, as we gear up for the NCAA tournament, I want to remind you that there are new parameters for Template:CBB schedule entry that pertain especially to this time of year. Use  and   to denote tournament seedings. In addition, in Template:CBB schedule end, use  and   for NCAA tournament regions. There is no longer any need to add text such as "tournament seedings in parentheses" as this is automatically added. Happy March! ~ Richmond 96   T  •  C   06:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Conference regular season placing
Most, if not all, Michigan Wolverines men's basketball seasons have the conference placing in the infobox via use of the ConfRecord= parameter. This year, I also added the placing to all other Big Ten teams. However, has reverted these changes with edits like this. I think we should include the placing in this way or some other more official parameter.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, this isn't necessary at all because the conference standings template is located directly underneath the infobox. ~ Richmond 96   T  •  C   04:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Richmond96. It's redundant and the standings template covers that already. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Richmond96 has it correct, I think it would be very redundant to put the conference placing in the infobox. Lincolning (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

ESPN All-American team
Can someone with an ESPN subscription tell me whether Tyler Ulis (and possibly Fred VanVleet) were listed in the ESPN All-American team. Also, can you tell me all Big 10 players listed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Tyler Ulis is on the First Team. Fred VanVleet is not on any team. Big Ten: 1st Team: Valentine; 2nd Team: Ferrell; 3rd Team: Uthoff/ — X96lee15 (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thx.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Making the gamename param in schedules small style
See Template_talk:CBB_schedule_entry. --Zach Pepsin (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Position of teams in brackets
What is the convention that we should use for team positions in tournament brackets? Specifically, in the case of an upset in the previous game, does the seeding take precedence over the position of the previous game in the bracket layout? As an example, at 2016 SWAC Men's Basketball Tournament, semifinal game between Jackson State and Mississippi Valley State, should Jackson be listed on top because they are a higher seed, or should Mississippi Valley State be listed on top because their previous game is in a higher position in the bracket layout? Most cases I've found use the latter convention, with exceptions for byes. Hoof Hearted (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Southern is correct to be listed on top in the bracket in this case. After the first rounds for teams, the seeds do not matter.  Whichever team was on top in the previous round would advance to the top listing slot in the next round.  However, in the section above the one you mentioned, I believe the higher seeded team should be listed second in all cases.  This is because for tournament game listings, the higher seed is treated as the "Home" team when the games are on a neutral court.--Zach Pepsin (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Zach. That was my feeling as well, but since it was reverted twice I was afraid I misunderstood.  Hoof Hearted (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

NCAA Tournament player biographies
With the NCAA Tournament getting underway, some college basketball player biographies will get a lot of views. However, I noticed that some stars for major teams do not have their own articles or have a very brief entry. Here is a list of players that may need an article very soon, or one that requires expansion:


 * Dillon Brooks (Oregon) [expansion]
 * Troy Caupain (Cincinnati)
 * Quenton DeCosey (Temple)
 * Brandon Ingram (Duke) [expansion]
 * Jalen Jones (Texas A&M)
 * Sheldon McClellan (Miami FL)
 * Jordan McLaughlin (USC)
 * Isaiah Miles (Saint Joseph's)
 * Shonn Miller and Rodney Purvis (UConn)
 * Justin Sears (Yale) [expansion]
 * Josh Scott (Colorado)
 * Thomas Walkup (Stephen F. Austin) [expansion]
 * Isaiah Whitehead (Seton Hall) [expansion] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dictator313 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would just be careful not to overly weight the NCAAT here. Some of these guys, like Josh Scott, Jalen Jones and Sheldon McClellan are also potential draft picks/NBA players so they could really use articles before the draft (otherwise they would be hastily produced on draft night). These articles will live well beyond this year's NCAAT so focus accordingly. Also, I shouldn't have to say it but I will - each player should meet WP:GNG today as opposed to assuming they will in the future. So if an article is created please be sure the references are there to demonstrate this. Rikster2 (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I guess I'd question some of the choices on the list. Why are we talking about Miller and Purvis from UConn when Daniel Hamilton is their best player and also doesn't have an article? You can't just go by a team's list of leading scorers. Rikster2 (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Here are some other names I'd suggest (they meet GNG too):
 * Ryan Anderson, Arizona
 * Joel Berry II, North Carolina
 * Ben Bentil, Providence
 * Elgin Cook, Oregon
 * Daniel Hamilton, UConn
 * Ethan Happ, Wisconsin
 * Marvelle Harris, Fresno State
 * Julian Jacobs, USC
 * Roosevelt Jones, Butler
 * London Perrantes, Virginia Rikster2 (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I should make a start on a few of these. Here is some more potential articles:
 * Isaiah Cousins, Oklahoma
 * Daniel Ochefu, Villanova
 * Melvin Johnson, VCU
 * Devonte Graham, Kansas
 * Danuel House, Texas A&M
 * Michael Young, Pittsburgh
 * Edmond Sumner, Xavier
 * Jordan Loveridge, Utah
 * Trevor Cooney, Syracuse ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 15:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Walkup
Walkup had an incredible first round game in the NCAA Tournament and is consistently posting huge numbers for Stephen F. Austin. Would anyone be open to expanding the page asap? Dictator313 (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Using links with color text
Whenever white-on-color or color-on-color text is used, such as in schedule tables and navboxes, it's hard to tell if certain text is actually a link. Usually, a link is identified by the pre-formatted blue or purple text. But when text is styled to be a certain color, there is no way to identify a link. What do you all think about underlining links to make it more apparent that they are actually links? See here for an example of the underlining applied to a season schedule table: User:Richmond96/sandbox ~ Richmond96   T  •  C   19:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I like that idea. That or don't colorize headings in those situations and use the standard colors. But if we're going to "color" headings, then I like underlining the links. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

What do some others think? Cc:, , , , ,.  ~ Richmond96  T •  C   17:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with making this change. --Zach Pepsin (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Y'all are invited...
It has been requested that Mississippi State Bulldogs and Lady Bulldogs be moved to Mississippi State Bulldogs per WP:COMMONNAME. Please join the discussion. Thanks! 🍀 Corkythe hornetfan  🍀 04:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

First Round vs Round of 64
After I made a number of edits to pages of teams in the 2016 NCAA Division I men's tournament using "first round" and "second round" to describe games on the opening weekend. Some of them have been reverted, some haven't. Richmond96 asked me to start a discussion here, and mentioned it has previously been decided. The only discussions I found in the past was a comment by Bagumba that no one responded to, and discussion from three years ago, prior to the NCAA announcing that it was returning to calling the games "first" and "second" rounds. I think we should use "first round" and "second round" since that is what the NCAA now calls them, and is therefore the most accurate, and part of their reasoning for returning to those names was to eliminate confusion. NCAA tournament's Thursday, Friday games again known as first round Round of XX sounds terrible to me, and was really only needed during that period when the NCAA called the play-in games the "first round." It's also very inconsistently used across CBB articles on Wikipedia.

If folks disagree, I'll go back and change the ones that were missed, but I think we should at least have a new discussion in light of the NCAA's decision to once again call the games first and second round games. Ncjon (talk) 11:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * For the 2016 tourney "first round" and "second round" are clearly correct. It gets more interesting when you look at the years where the NCAA used "round of 64," etc. I recently edited CJ McCollum's article - an editor had changed the wording from "in Lehigh's first round game against Duke" to say "second round." - to say "first game" because it made it sound like both teams had played a game already when that was not the case. Rikster2 (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you NC for starting the discussion. Here is the previous discussion on the topic, from exactly one year ago today interestingly enough.  While I am glad the NCAA reverted to using "First Round" the issue I see here is that if a reader is flipping between different season articles for a particular team, they could see "Second Round" listed for two different years, which would lead them to believe the team advanced just as far in both Tournaments.  Likewise, they could see "Second Round" for 2014–15 and "First Round" for 2015–16 and naturally think that the team advanced further in 2014–15 but they actually advanced the same.  Last night on SportsCenter, I saw that ESPN used the terms "Round of 64/32" on a chart which detailed Villanova's recent Tournament results from the past few years.  This illustrated my point perfectly; if ESPN had used "First/Second/Third Round" there would be no way to tell how far they advanced year-over-year. Also, if you Google "NCAA Tournament Round of 64" you will see many links and articles using the phrase, which shows that it is not an unused or unfamiliar term.   ~ Richmond96   T •  C   15:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I favor round of 64, although I have used both interchangeably. It's good that the "First Four" is no longer considered the first round. I think round of 64 would get rid of confusion regarding past seasons of basketball, since the NCAA was inconsistent. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 17:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally I think it should be listed as First Round and Second Round. It was only the Second and Third from 2011 to 2015 so I don't seed why pages before then and after then can be listed as First Round and pages during those years listed as Round of 64, for example. I don't think that would be confusing. I've always been of the thought that It should be listed however the tournament's official name should be but nobody ever liked calling the round of 64 the second round. Now that it's back to the old wording I think we should go back to it as well.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's my view as well, but i wanted to give a few more editors a chance to respond before making that point. Ncjon (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand this view, but I think that we should stick with one naming convention for all seasons, and the "Round of XX" is the one that can be universally applied. At minimum, the years that the Tournament used "Second/Third Rounds" should be referred to as "64/32", but it makes more sense to me to be consistent across all seasons.  ~ Richmond96   T •  C   03:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If we are going to stick with one "naming convention" then Round of XX should not be used at all. We should not let those five years of the tournament effect how we list it for every season prior to 2011 and after 2015. To me it is not confusing calling the round of 64 the second round or the round of 32 the third round during those years. That is what they were called. Nobody liked it, but it's a fact. If anyone is confused by seeing second round even though a team didn't win a game then they can further research it. So I say we either list it the accurate way it was in the tournament or list second and third round as Round of XX for only 2011-2015.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think 'Round of XX should be used until the regional rounds (Sweet 16).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't use a naming convention from what was an acknowledged short-term mistake by the NCAA. I say first and second rounds. Rikster2 (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Use first and second rounds for all seasons except 2011–15? I wouldn't think it right to say "Second Round" for a 2014 Third Round participant. Right?  ~ Richmond96   T •  C   00:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * PS: while we're all here, is it "First Round" or "first round"?  ~ Richmond96  T •  C   00:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Since it's not a formal name, I would say lowercase "first round." Ncjon (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

So what is our consensus? Use First/Second Round in all years except 2011–15, where Round of 64/32 will be used?  ~ Richmond96  T •  C   21:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What about a compromise of "NCAA Tournament, Second Round (64)"?  ~ Richmond96  T •  C   21:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I support using first round/second round for all years and putting the number beside it for 2011-15, as Richmond96 has proposed, i.e. Second round (64) Ncjon (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I guess if there are no additional comments we will use this method for 2011–15 only.  ~ Richmond96   T •  C   18:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Eliminating "NCAA Round of 32" from (men's) CBB team infoboxes?
I've seen this question surface from time to time -- always ancillary to other questions -- but my scan of the archives didn't turn up any consensus on the issue, so I thought I'd see if we could reach one here.

From looking through the archives, it seems well-settled that the infobox should include tournament appearances and all rounds from the Sweet 16 and later (and I agree), and there appears to be consensus around date conventions for use of "Sweet Sixteen" (1951–present) and "Elite Eight" (1939–present), but I find including "Second Round" or "Round of 32" (the current form in the infobox) appearances problematic for all of the reasons previously mentioned in these debates. "Second Round" could mean everything from the Final Four from 1939-50, to the Elite Eight from 1951-52, to the Sweet Sixteen from 1975-78, to the round of 32 from the 1985-present (or round of 64 from 2011-15, with the stupid renaming the NCAA introduced with the First Four). And who knows what it signifies for all of those years when the tournament had some teams receiving byes? It certainly isn't self-evident what "Second Round" means, as should be the case with information in the infobox, during the years when the field had, e.g., 23 teams, 40 teams, or 53 teams. "Round of 32," the current name for the infobox field, is more precise but is also not without its problems: It's synonymous with "first round" from 1975-78, and it's completely inapposite for the 1939-74 tournaments. For the 1979-84 tournaments, it's the same as simply an appearance for some teams (those with byes) but signifies one tournament win for others (those without).

In addition to the irresolvable ambiguity of either "Round of 32" or "Second Round," I think it's just insufficiently noteworthy to be part of an infobox. Total tournament appearances as well as number of appearances in Sweet Sixteens and succeeding rounds are all frequently discussed as metrics of historical achievement; "Round of 32" or "Second Round" appearances are not.

In short, I propose deleting the Round of 32 field from the infobox. (If there's a way to attract more attention from CBB Project contributors than posting this here, please let me know -- or feel free to make any change that would help draw more input.) João Do Rio (talk) 04:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

AfD: John Hartwell
Not directly related to this project, per se, but of tangential interest to some members here as an NCAA Division I athletic director. Please see: Articles for deletion/John Hartwell. Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox college coach
I have proposed some changes to Template:Infobox college coach, specifically removing external links. Please see the discussion here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Redirects of college players to season article
You are invited to join the discussion at Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_23 regarding redirects of all of a college team's players to a season article.—Bagumba (talk) 05:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

AfD Power Seven Conferences
Seems like WP:OR to me. Don't know when this term has ever been used. A10 a Power Conference? It has never has been considered one. I believe this article should be AfD. CrazyPaco (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of the term either and neither of the cited sources actually back up the term. I would AfD it. Jweiss11 (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Easy fix. Rename the page to Power Six Conferences, which would include the Big East along with the Power 5 football conferences (Big 12, ACC, Big 10, Pac 12, and SEC). Then move Atlantic 10 to the other category within the page. Jorgeriverez (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

AfD Category:Temple Owls women's basketball navigational boxes
This was brought to my attention, I've been working on the women's side of college basketball creating categories to follow suit with the men's. See discussion here: Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 30. Littlekelv (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Auto-assessment of article classes
Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ RobTalk 22:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Scott Drapeau AfD
Editors of this project might be interested in commenting on Articles for deletion/Scott Drapeau. Thank you. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Please contribute to CfD discussion
Rikster2 (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

RM for NCAA tournament
There is a move request at Talk:NCAA_Men%27s_Division_I_Basketball_Championship to move NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship → NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament.—Bagumba (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Bump. More participation would be appreciated. Jenks24 (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Has now been done.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

"No." vs "#" abbreviation and MOS:NUMBERSIGN
Should articles use "No." or "#" in the context of an abbreviation for a ranking? MOS:NUMBERSIGN says it should use "No." instead of "#", but I'm in a disagreement with in its usage in a season article page. I can see where "#" might be preferred, but the MOS is pretty clear on this one. — X96lee15 (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Exceptions need to be made. Schedule auto-populates '#' not "No.". I think it is acceptable, especially in certain cases: schedules, infoboxes, etc. Lincolning (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I could see rankings being an exception, but infoboxes aren't. Retired numbers use no. Rikster2 (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * @Lincolning: "Other stuff exists" is generally not the most compelling argument. Schedules could be changed to use "No." also, so that in itself is not a deciding factor.  Why do you think an exception is needed?—Bagumba (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * My point is only that all basketball pages currently use the #. I don't see a compelling reason for the use of "No." in the first place. If nothing else, it would take a ton of effort to change every page that already uses #. As for infoboxes, "Infobox NCAA team season" currently uses #. Lincolning (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Usage of # as "number" is mostly an American (maybe Canada also) thing. Wikipedia is written for general English readers, hence the MOS:NUMBERSIGN guideline that is generally followed on Wikipedia.—Bagumba (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I started this same conversation here: Template talk:Infobox NCAA team season to get consensus before submitting an edit request to the protected infobox. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if this is the right place to voice my opinion, but since it looks like the majority of the conversation took place here... I support the change from # to No. in all sports rankings per MOS:POUND. Lizard  (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI
Please see Talk:Dean_Edwards_Smith. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Navigation boxes in coaches articles
Something needs to be done with navigation boxes like in the Ray Giacoletti article. There is simply way too many to not be grouped together. Personally, I'd like to see them grouped like in this diff. No color is needed since the coaches are at various schools. I don't care if you want to leave the default name  as the title or something like , etc. ☔️ Corkythe  hornetfan  🌺 02:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't personally have a problem with collapsing coach navboxes like we do other navboxes, but given how much overlap there is between college basketball and football (in other words, people who have coached both) it seems like this one is something we should coordinate with WP:College football. I would probably suggest a specific naming convention for coach awards for people who have lots of coach boxes and lots of award boxes (eg - Larry Brown) so they don't get mixed up. I could see readers wanting to follow a progression with them. Rikster2 (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We already have a convention in use for collapsing championship and awards/honors navboxes. See Bo Schembechler for an example.  This is in use for many college football coaches and many others.  As Rikster suggests, whatever we do, we need it to be consistent across all North American sports.  See Hugo Bezdek for an example of how interconnected all of it. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Needs reduction Way too many being displayed. Collapse them unless there's another alternative. I dont necessarily agree we should sit idle if consensus is not reached across NA sports. It's better to be inconsistently organized than consistently cluttered.—Bagumba (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Bagumba, do you favor a separate collapsed grouping for coaching/management positions or to group them with awards/honors? My point on a separate grouping is that I think navboxes are used by readers to follow a loose chronology when it comes to jobs, so personally I'd favor two groupings, maybe "Coaching/Management positions" and "Links to related articles." Rikster2 (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I'd favor two groupings myself. One for positions, one for awards. ☔️ Corkythe hornetfan  🌺 13:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. ,, , , , I am relisting again so that we can have a consensus and something can be done about it. I've tagged a couple of others who didn't comment but often edit to these projects. I am changing my last response to: I'd favor two groupings – one for coaching positions, the other for administrative. The awards templates could go in the group of the pf that they are awarded for. I'd also like to see the current school template listed above the groupings, but if the majority would rather have it in with the group, I'll favor for that. 🎓 Corkythe hornetfan  🎓 19:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm generally against this idea, but the this last proposal seems like worst idea yet. So, you want to break apart the coaching position navboxes from the administrative position navboxes, even though they often have overlapping, intermeshed chronology?  And then you want to group navboxes for awards won for coaching in the coaching grouping with the tenure navboxes?  I assume navboxes for championships won as a coach would go there as well?  How would things be organized and ordered within that coach grouping?  I don't believe that there are any award navboxes that refer to administrative work.  And administrators are generally left off of championship navboxes.  What about player tenure navaboxes?  I believe the only ones that exist are for quarterbacks at various levels and for MLB opening day pitchers—the latter may be considered an awards/honors/achievement navbox, rather than a positional navbox.  What about navboxes for awards and championships won as a player? Jweiss11 (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Then split the coaching/admin and player boxes and include the awards with whatever group it belongs. I really don't care how it gets grouped, just as long as they are collapsed. I was throwing an idea out. The pages look hideous when they are not collapsed. Leave them as is (chronological order), but group them. I said I'll favor whatever the majority of the consensus is. 🎓 Corkythe hornetfan  🎓 20:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm still favoring collapsing coach navboxes. I think using only one Template:Navboxes would be easiest; I don't have a strong feeling if inside that grouping whether all coaching navboxes should be together or not.  I would also be OK if we had two Template:Navboxes—one for coaching navs, the other for awards.  As long as excess boxes are collapsed, I can live with any other grouping.—Bagumba (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I say collapse under the one banner (links to related articles). I feel like the guidance should be to group the college jobs within that (as opposed to mixing within awards, championship teams, etc) but am OK with whatever happens there. I am on the fence as to whether active coaches should show the navbox for their current program outside the "nest," but "current coaches of conference X" should definitely not be nested as it's a current template. Rikster2 (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What would be the threshold to collapse? Would it be three or four navboxes? If there is some hard number I could support collapsing on positions with the reservation of figures such as Bob Stoops who has only HC one program at one school. However, with pro players QB's coaches etc this may get a little sticky.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * -Although a third option would be to collapse it on school. That way if someone was the football, BB, baseball, and AD at Bugtussle A&M, and the head coach at Goliath State those schools could be separate? (not the most likely solution but just throwing it out there).UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if there is a standard but if there are four or more, that's usually when I'll collapse (in university articles). I like the Stoops article, and I think articles should stay like that. It's articles like William McAvoy + Ray Giacoletti that I'm more concerned about. 🎓 Corkythe hornetfan  🎓 21:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * At WP:NBA, we generally collapse at 3 or move navboxes.—Bagumba (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 3 or more is also the threshold we're using to group/collapse the awards/honors/champs navboxes, e.g. Bo Schembechler. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

UCO2009bluejay, collapsing on school sounds like a very bad idea. To generalize, I think the approach suggested here is terrible. The tenure navboxes are, generally speaking, far more important than other of the other navboxes (awards, champs, etc). They reflect biographical elements that are core to the subject's identity and bring consistency and context across thousands of sports biography articles. Admittedly, the footer of an article like Larry Brown (basketball) is pretty chunky, but I'd hate to see those tenure navboxes just tossed into with the awards, honors, and championships navboxes that you find below them. We'd be creating a bigger mess, just one pushed deeper into the closet. A better approach to address clutter would be to start knocking off and deleting some of the more crufty accolade navboxes like Template:United States squad 1999 FIBA Americas Championship or Template:National Jewish Sports Hall of Fame. We also need to overhaul the NBA and NFL team navboxes, take the cruft and easter eggs out of them, and purge them from biographical articles, a la what we have done with the college sports teams navboxes. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Jweiss - That's all well and good, but there are still plenty of nomad coaches who have WAY too many navboxes at the bottom of the article. Larry Brown has 12 coach navboxes alone (he'd have another if anyone created a Carolina Cougars navbox). Getting rid of the cruft is worthwhile, but it doesn't solve the problem because today all the non coach/AD navboxes can be nested if they get out of hand. I don't really see why the positional ones should stand outside that when the coach chronology is also in the infobox. One of the suggestions was a separate nest/header for coaching/administrative positions - maybe that's the way to go. Rikster2 (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So I think it's safe to say the consensus it to group them together... just group them all together in one? No color background will be used, either; just the default. 🎓 Corkythe hornetfan  🎓 10:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm a little late to the table but I'm not fully on board with the statement of the problem. I don't view Ray Giacoletti as a problem. I have seen some articles where the number of awards gets out of hand but I've adopted the convention (which I think is generally supported) that is the awards reach five or so they should all be included in a collapsed box. I follow that with respect to awards and honors but leave positional now boxes outside of that. This coach has only two awards navboxes so it wouldn't be worth the bother to collapse those two.


 * Larry Brown is a better example of the case where it's getting a little out of hand but I think it looks odd when the nav boxes start to dominate the article and that's not the case here. (As an aside I hate the succession boxes but that's not the immediate subject; having said that a proper navbox would take up far less space.)-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

,, , , , , , , and many more (I'm sure I forgot some.). I'm pinging those who have commented and those who are active in these projects for one last final !vote. Under the sections below, comment whether you're in favor of grouping all together, separate (positions, awards), not at all or other option. The general standard is 3-4+. Corkythe hornetfan  19:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

All together

 * 1) This is clean, and simplest to implement.  I'm not sold on idea of needing overhead of two groupings (but it would be better than doing nothing at all).—Bagumba (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) I've stayed out of the conversation but believe all together is the best solution. Littlekelv (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree with Bagumba that I could support two separate groupings but that this is my first choice (perhaps mandating the order the boxes are listed within). I just fail to see why coach tenure navboxes are necessarily more important than others and am tired of the overloaded navboxes of the Larry Browns and Mysterious Walkers of the world. At the end of the day, coach tenures should be in the infobox anyway so it isn't like the information is being hidden - it is still available on quick scan. Rikster2 (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) I don't feel strongly about this but we may as well just lump everything together so keep pages cleaner. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Sweep them under the bed and let's be done with this.  Lizard  (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Others

 * 1) I'm in favor of keep in the status quo.  Leaving all positional navboxes ungrouped and putting all championships, awards, and honors navboxes in one collapsed grouping. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Scope of this discussion
We need to be clear about the scope of this discussion and the potential style guidelines it may produce. As I have explained above and elsewhere, whatever the standard is, it can't/won't be just a college basketball coach standard. We are by definition talking about a standard that spans to at least all coaches in North American pro and college sports, because the population of college basketball coaches crosses into all those other sports and levels of play. I know Corky notified other projects about this discussion, but it should be made clear to other projects, namely WikiProject College football, WikiProject National Basketball Association, WikiProject National Football League, Baseball, and WikiProject Canadian football, that what's being discussed here has potential to impact thousands of articles within the scope of those projects. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There's enough differences between WikiProjects that a local consensus for North American basketball articles should not be a problem. If exceptions are needed for multisport coaches from the past, then it can be dealt with separately as needed.—Bagumba (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Bagumba, I'm not sure you're appreciating the point I'm making. Again, were not talking about just basketball articles.  Were talking about all North American coach articles, particularly baseball and football coach articles.  Mysterious Walker, a classic example of a multisport coach from the early 1900s, is cited above in this discussion.  How exactly would certain multisport coaches quality for an exception and why?  If Walker's tenure navboxes are collapsed, what does that mean for John L. Smith, a fellow item in Template:Utah State Aggies football coach navbox with seven tenure navboxes, none of which are basketball-related? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern. However, nothing is perfect, status quo included. Exceptions, as always, would be made by consensus, but we can cross the bridge when/if we get there.  Maybe all sports would just follow suit with basketball.  In the worst case, only basketball-only coaches could be changed (though I personally think it makes sense to collapse across the board).—Bagumba (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Jweiss11, How would you suggest we get the vote out? I somewhat agree with Bagumba that it doesn't HAVE to be consistent, but it would be much better for the multi-sport editor if it were. Rikster2 (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Philadelphia Sports Hall of Fame navigational boxes nominated for deletion
I have nominated the 13 Philadelphia Sports Hall of Fame navigational boxes for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

2016 McDonald's All-American Boys Game images
I have finally hastily edited and winnowed down the thousands of images that I took at the 2016 McDonald's All-American Boys Game to about 200. I am welcoming feedback on which images to use for each of the 24 players in various articles. Please stop by at Talk:2016_McDonald's_All-American_Boys_Game to select preferred images for each player.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Good work as usual. Players I didn't vote an image for thought were too cluttered. Interested to see how others vote. Littlekelv (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , I appreciate your assistance and don't mean to sound unappreciative of your efforts to assist me in my selections, but I am confused. I admit, I do not have perfect images, but this one of Udoka Azubike and this one of Zach Collins are not so bad. Too cluttered for what? easy identification? Have you looked around at some images used in articles? Evan Turner and Manny Harris are some of the articles I watch. Look at the current images in Ben Simmons and Brandon Ingram (who went 1-2 in the 2016 NBA draft). This one of Dewan Huell and This one of Marques Bolden (a dynamic action shot) are fairly uncluttered. I don't understand your abstain decisions on those examples. Are you saying that the uncluttered images are not of sufficient quality for the remaining subjects?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , I hope you didn't take anything as an insult. They are great images. My personal preference is for easy identification. I might have overlooked a couple pictures, went through them right before bed last night. Thanks again for bringing these images every year. Littlekelv (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , I am just trying to get at least 4 or 5 responses for any subject with debatable images. Thus, I am hoping to get the best of what we have responses for all subjects. I understand that for some players the options are less spectacular than others, but I would appreciate it if you could fill out your slate (especially Jarrett Allen where we need help getting forming a consensus) with responses for the best of what is available.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know if people are aware that our readers could be looking at these as the main image for a few years. The top 3 selections in the 2016 NBA draft still have McDonald's A-A game images as their main images and a half dozen players from the 2013 McDonald's All-American Boys Game still have MDAAG images as their main image.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey folks, thanks for contributing toward consensus building on these images. 18 of the 24 players now have an image supported by a majority of respondents. I would still appreciate some feedback on Bam Adebayo, De'Aaron Fox, Jarrett Allen, Josh Jackson, Markelle Fultz, and Sacha Killeya-Jones who remain difficult decisions. Recall that the top 3 guys in the 2016 NBA draft, 2 of the top 3 in the 2015 NBA draft and a total of 21 players in those two drafts (plus Cliff Alexander who went undrafted) had our MCDAAG images as the main image on draft day. Thus, this set of images is important to the project as a whole. I especially encourage people who have commented on some players, but not all of these 6 that remain undecided to please consider them. These pictures are very likely to be our representation of these players on their NBA draft day (whether they are drafted or not).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks to --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016–17 Weber State Wildcats men's basketball team
Those in this project may be interested in Articles for deletion/2016–17 Weber State Wildcats men's basketball team. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about recruit box templates in bios
Please joint the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

2016–17 team season articles
A number of these are being put up for AfD, so anyone who is interested should head over to WikiProject Deletion sorting/Basketball and chime in if they have an opinion. Please be sure to research that the season actually meets WP:GNG today and list examples of substantial, reliable coverage. This trend actually highlights the issues with creating articles for every one of every D1 program's seasons and then not expanding or sourcing them. A roster and a schedule is not an article. Rikster2 (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We need to strike a balance between sourcing articles so non-domain experts don't tag notable seasons for deletion, while allowing editors who have less interest in citations to still be able to contribute verifiable info to notable topics. WP:V does not mandate that everything is sourced, only that it is sourced if "likely" to be challenged.  For better or for worse, most WP content has no citations.  AfD's for notability of seasons seems to always occur, and generally they are kept.  Most D1 teams will inevitably get coverage from local media, media from opposing cities, as well as national coverage of college basketball. To reduce AfD bureaucracy, this is where SNGs are most helpful (not merely to create more rules).  We should consider adding some wording on seasons of teams from top conferences (is Power Seven Conferences a thing?) being inherently notable, and when future seasons should be started (e.g. when there is recruit info, scheduling info, etc).  That way, there is less debate on seasons like 2016–17 Connecticut Huskies men's basketball team, though one like 2016–17 Weber State Wildcats men's basketball team may continue unless we are sure all D1 season are notable.—Bagumba (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair points. My gut tells me that most (if not all) D1 seasons end up being notable because of the immense amount of coverage in-season but that not all are going to meet GNG as of early August. That said, why would it be acceptable to have hundreds of articles with just a roster and results when there are a huge number of sources outside of Wikipedia for this information? Isn't this the rationale against posting stats in player articles? Rikster2 (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, with the big three American sports, it's only WP Baseball that doesnt have stats in bios (but does in team articles). As far as season articles, is it worth going through the hassle of deleting an article that will generally be notable a few months later?  While I don't create these articles, I'm resigned that others do, and personally don't have interest in deleting an article merely on principle, when it will ultimately be allowed on WP anyways.—Bagumba (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Samford Bulldogs basketball
Samford Bulldogs basketball was moved to Samford Bulldogs men's basketball yesterday. When the women's program of a school has a different fight name, the "men's" and "women's" are redundant and thus omitted, correct? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: seems Samford's women's program is now going by "Bulldogs", not "Lady Bulldogs" anymore. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on Naismith HOF navboxes
There is a discussion underway at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball about the need for 2 navboxes associated with this honor. Please take part. Rikster2 (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Table headings
I just created CollegePrimaryHeader and CollegeSecondaryHeader for creating colored table headings in team articles. you can see an example in an article in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USC_Trojans_football_statistical_leaders&oldid=736778040 USC Trojans football statistical leaders]. it currently supports a maximum of 6 columns, but that limit will be lifted once I have a chance to merge the core code with Module:College color. it supports a maximum of 50 columns. Frietjes (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship
Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:


 * Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

ColPollTable

 * Just copy-pasting what I put on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football

Hey guys. I recently came across Template:ColPollTable and its subtemplates and decided to turn it into a more robust module. I have a test based on 2008–09 NCAA Division I men's basketball rankings in my sandbox. The main improvement is that instead of requiring different templates for each amount of weeks, I created a check that just looks for the highest week defined (currently, it supports 50 weeks, twice the highest count available currently). After a brief discussion at Wikipedia talk:Lua, Mr.S suggested I come here next to ask if ColPolTable is the desirable way to do things. This was part of my original concerns. These templates have relatively few transclusions, which leads me to believe there might be a superior template that you guys prefer instead.

A couple notes about the module: I thought it only went up to 20, but according to PI, it goes up to 25. And from the looks of it, 25 rows isn't always the desired amount. I can probably fix this to be as robust as the week definition, but I'd like to discuss how to proceed with you guys first. If there's reason to continue using this template, I'll gladly update the code. mol uɐɯ  11:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

assist with ongoing data cleanup project
We have a new minor data cleanup project, context shown at Template talk:Infobox NCAA team season. The work involves removing a single &lt;br> tag, while leaving the data intact.

So the old format: South Division
 * conference       = Pac-12 Conference
 * division         =

Is updated to this format:
 * conference       = Pac-12 Conference
 * division         = South Division

Here is the tracking Cat which is automatically (ongoing) populated at Category:Pages using infobox NCAA team season with spurious br tag in division and shows the articles in need of this change. So far this is mostly FB articles, but with some CBK.

Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is now resolved via WP:AWB with a Category filter. UW Dawgs (talk) 05:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Recommendation to revise notability guideline for basketball figures
Please weigh in at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/2015–16 Alaska Anchorage Seawolves men's basketball team
Nominated for deletion. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

AfD: Steve Abbott
Not directly related to this project, per se, but of tangential interest to some members here as a former NCAA Division I athletic director. Please see: here. Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

City, State listing
I have been creating and updating season articles for about 5 years. The city and state of the location of the game in the schedule template has always been abbreviated. Example: Boise, ID instead of Boise, Idaho. User:Colonies Chris has been changing a lot of pages to have the state written out. He is also removing the state from more well known cities. Example: Philadelphia instead of Philadelphia, PA. Was this move agreed upon? Did I miss something? I am currently creating pages for the upcoming season so how am I suppose to format it? The same way I always have or to what Colonies Chris has been changing it to?Bsuorangecrush (talk) 00:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No. The change is not required by MOS and is against consensus for the project (as well as most projects). Feel free to re-add the state. This has been an ongoing disagreement with Chris from members of the basketball, hockey and football projects. Rikster2 (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have reverted some of his edits, I just don't want to get a temporary ban for an edit war. But if there is no consensus I'll keep doing it the way I always have.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have opened a discussion on Colonies Chris's talk page about this issue. I don't see a consensus behind his edits on this issue.  Bsuorangecrush, I support you to reverting to the status quo until we can get some sort of resolution on this. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have began reverting his edits. For now I am only going to do the upcoming season but he has changed most from other seasons as well. I just don't have the time to keep up with it all now. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 03:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

There is MOS around naming articles using only city name where the city is widely known at WP:USPLACE. However, this guidance doesn't require or even address keeping the city intact in all parts of Wikipedia. There are cases like infoboxes and tables where projects are trying to use consistent formatting (which I would maintain IS a value to the reader) where I believe it is perfectly acceptable to always list city in City, State format. At the end of the day, there is no MOS stating otherwise, despite some editors wanting to extrapolate based on USPLACE. Rikster2 (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Help at Featured article candidates/Cliff Clinkscales/archive1
Can I get some help at Featured article candidates/Cliff Clinkscales/archive1. This article has a very unencyclopedic tone, IMO and borders on WP:CRUFT. I am having trouble bringing it up to par as a reviewer.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Jim Stack
Would someone mind taking a look at Jim Stack? I believe this might be the same person who starred for Northwestern in the early 80s. The only source cited has been overwritten, but if this is the same Jim Stack then there probably coverage in Chicago papers like the Tribune and Sun Times from when he was in college and his association with the Bulls. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is the same guy. Rikster2 (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Colors in team seasons
I know several people who create articles – &  – may or may not know about the module. Instead of using "background:#0021A5; color:white;" in the articles, please use. Using the template will 1) Include the correct colors and 2) will be in compliance with WP:CONTRAST. I'm not sure if the colors are made up, taken from the university website, etc., but some of them are either incorrect or are. Thanks, Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 20:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, in most cases, is more accurate and simpler. Lincolning (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That is just a variant of the one I listed. Either way, they both go to the Module so it doesn't matter which one. The one I use is the one I listed so that's the one I typed. Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 21:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Auto-tagging of articles
Based on what User:BU Rob13 has already done for WikiProject College football, would there be any objections to attempting a similar tagging project for this project? Category:College men's basketball players in the United States, Category:College women's basketball players in the United States, Category:College men's basketball coaches in the United States, Category:College women's basketball coaches in the United States and their associated subcategories would be the target categories. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * No objection here. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It has now been over 2 weeks since this notice was first posted. What else needs to be done so that we can move forward with this? Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to file a WP:BRFA and then actually do this. I'm a bit busy, so it might take a while; I wasn't aware that this discussion had been completed before now. I'll try to get to this next weekend, since I'm studying for a midterm this weekend. ~ Rob 13 Talk 05:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, feel free to work on whatever schedule works best for you, and thanks. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * BRFA submitted and speedily approved. Working on getting the task running now. You may wish to consider whether Category:College basketball seasons in the United States would be another good target. ~ Rob 13 Talk 18:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Task complete, for now. ~ Rob 13 Talk 15:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on BU Rob13's suggestion, above, I concur that Category:College basketball seasons in the United States should also be automatically tagged, as well. Does anyone else have any thoughts about this? Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good candidate too. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A week's passed, so . ~ Rob 13 Talk 10:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please also see here, here, here, and here. Thanks. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's on my radar. I'll need to file another BRFA for those, so I'm getting the stuff I'm already approved for out of the way first. ~ Rob 13 Talk 12:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Please contribute to discussion to add National Team career in basketball biography infobox
Discussion started at Template talk:Infobox basketball biography on whether to add national team tenures to infobox. Please chime in. Rikster2 (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages
Greetings Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, — Delivered: 17:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Table of records vs. opponent
Do we need tables such as this one... against It's way too large, a majority of them are games that have only been played once or twice, and no will keep it up-to-date (besides . Plus, a new opponent would likely be added every year making this table larger. I've tried removing it, but Ajc7755 wants it kept. So now, I'm reaching out to the community for more input. Thanks, Corkythe  hornetfan  (ping me) 01:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * There are 12-18 non con games a year to update, over half of with are against opponents that they have already played. And there are 18+ conference games that get updated for teams pages, so the effort is no more then what is already being done for those games. If conference games can be updated, why not other opponents? There is also a date stamp showing how up to date it is so there is no confusion on if its accurate, just like with coaching records, or any other such data that is consistently updated. The information is also printed in every teams yearly media guide and historical head to head is brought up in team media, tv and radio prior to games so its information that is clearly thought of as important enough to share why not share it here as well. Why would more information available upfront on wiki be a bad thing if it is up to date, and has been up to date for 3+ years? It is already hidden so it doesn't cause scrolling issues with the page and only takes up a small amount of space. What issue is there with it staying? Why would we want to put a lock down on accurate, up to date, and informative information? Ajc7755 (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Since Ajc7755 wants to actively maintain the Kansas State chart I don't see an issue with it. I will object vehemently if it starts to spread beyond K-State though. There is 0% chance the table records are actively/correctly maintained on any other program. The only caveat to my support for K-State is that if we find it is not being actively maintained, the chart should be removed altogether. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Despite the best intentions of editors, these kinds of charts and level of detail rarely get updated regularly and seem to violate WP:NOTGUIDE. Eventually, too many editors get busy with other aspects of life or simply lose interest, and the article is left with multiple sections that are out of date. We don't need to duplicate every stat from a team's media guide. These articles are supposed to be thorough, yet general in their discussion of the program, not every minute detail and statistic. It's not unreasonable to have a chart for the team's records against their league and other significant rivals, but every team? Seems a bit much and really doesn't help the reader understand the topic better. So Kansas State beat Air Force in 1963 in their only meeting...so? If readers want more details about a specific part of a team's history, they can quite easily go to the media guide themselves. And personally, while I can appreciate details, it seems the records in the previous sections are overly detailed with so many columns. Do we really need to know last five AND last ten? --JonRidinger (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd say that is way to much to be included. It won't be updated and really if someone wants to know that much then they wouldn't be coming to wikipedia in the first place. Wikipedia should not just be a blanket media guide for teams. Postseason games are about as far as I would say should be included.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 05:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

and have a point... no one would come to Wikipedia if they want to know the records against other opponents. That's what the media guides are for. , the only problem is we'll have a new-comer comer come along and start spreading that chart for each team. We need to prevent a mess from happening as early as possible. If we do any tables against opponents, it should only be the conference members... Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 03:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Would it be instead acceptable to cut out the last 5, and last 10, and limit the opponent list down to opponents played more then 5 or 10 games and make it a list of highly played non-con games and not all non-con games? Many teams have history with teams outside of their conference that is notable. For example, KU vs Kentucky/Duke/North Carolina has a lot of history. There are a lot of other non-con matchups worth noting across the country that are big rivals. These wouldn't be something that is updated that often, maybe a few games a year at the most. Ajc7755 (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Again, for most records against other teams, there's no reason to include it since it can be found in the media guide. What I've generally done is just include records against current conference members and non-conference series that are regular or close to regular (almost every season...see Kent State Golden Flashes men's basketball for an example), though I'm sure others may argue even that is too much, so a consensus is what needs to happen. 5 games still includes a lot of records against teams that haven't been played sometimes in decades. In cases like KU vs. some of the other major names in college basketball there is definitely some history and notable games, but few, if any, are regular series; i.e. the games might be significant but the series itself isn't. That KU and Kentucky are both major college basketball teams who have played some significant games (most significant is obviously 2012 national championship game) isn't in question; that they have what constitutes a rivalry on the level of KU-Kansas State and, KU-Mizzou, or Kentucky-Louisville is. This year will be meeting #30 all-time for KU and UK (the UK-Indiana rivalry has 55 meetings). Again, does knowing a specific series against a team really tell the reader that much about the subject, or is it simply trivia? --JonRidinger (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

deprecate Athletic Director
There is a discussion at Template talk:Infobox NCAA football school in which you may be interested. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Rankings template
The current ranking template that is used on most CBB pages is Template:Ranking movements but that template does not account for the fact that college basketball does not have week 1 rankings, it goes from Preseason to week 2. I think it should be discussed how this should be handled to accurately reflect the ranking information. Right now most pages have the week 2 rankings displayed as week 1 which has them all thrown off by a week. Having Wikipedia rankings different than every other source is not a good practice in my opinion. I would recommend an update to the template for CBB or reverting back to the old manual ranking table.Mjs32193 (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Has anyone gotten back to this or are we just going to leave it as it is? It is very confusing when the week numbers don't match up. Adamtt9 (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It does not seem like it has been addressed, but I agree that it is confusing and is not a good practice for Wikipedia to not be consistent with the references that are cited. Until the template is updated I am going to revert back to the old manual table, but it will take a while to change all pages and may be a waste of time if the template is eventually updated. This same issue also exists with college football rankings.Mjs32193 (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Auto date problem
Use of the Auto-dating template { {date|{ {date} }|mdy} } on the college standings seems to be a good idea gone bad. It does automatically change the "As of..." date to the current date, BUT, if any changes in the standings and W–L record are not made in sync with the date change, it,cheerfully displays the wrong (by being out-dated) information as correct "As of (the date"... GWFrog (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please restate. I follow the auto-dating (we do this on CFB), but not where you see it failing. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course the auto-date should not be used on any standings templates. First of all, the date should never be more recent than that of the date of the most recent game played to avoid conflicts such as games being rescheduled.  Secondly, auto-dating ruins the entire purpose of the date parameter which is to display the date of the most recent update. --Zach Pepsin (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Auto-date appears to be used on only about half of the standings, I think it should be removed as well. Lincolning (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * CFB auto-dates because most editors updated the WL date and ignore the "as of" dating. I get with the frequency of bball udpates might increase editor familiarity and result in both being updated.  Again, what defect is being observed? UW Dawgs (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue is that some templates are not updated every day and contain outdated information. In that case the date will incorrectly say its up to date if that auto-date is used. Not every conference standings is kept up to date every day, and some people only update for the schools that they follow.Mjs32193 (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The common use-case where the auto-date is an issue is if editors update the standings template the morning after games are played. The "as of" date reflects that morning, but there will still be games played that night, so it's incorrect. — X96lee15 (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

External links to general program website on specific season articles
I recently removed an external link to the website for the Connecticut Huskies women's basketball program on 2015–16 Connecticut Huskies women's basketball team and on a series of other women's college basketball season articles. Despite Sphilbrick's objection on my talk page, this is pretty standard procedure. I'm quite sure this issue has been discussed here or at WikiProject College football in past. Thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Remove per Jweiss. Unless the teams have a website specifically for that year, there is no need to include them. Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 07:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Remove any links that are not specific to the relevant season.—Bagumba (talk) 08:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Retain I strongly disagree. We provide a link to an official website for obvious reasons; it is a convenience to a reader who may be reading about a particular subject and might be interested in the official website associated with the subject. While this is generally true for many subjects, it is particularly appropriate for articles about sports teams. It is quite common for someone to be reading about particular team and then be interested in visiting the official site associated with the team. While Wikipedia has articles about the general team, there are also articles about a particular season for the team. Not surprisingly the information about that particular season is contained in the official site for the team but sports teams don't generally create a separate official site for each season. Nevertheless, you were viewing, for example, the 2015–16 Connecticut Huskies women's basketball team And were interested in the official site, you wouldn't be surprised that the official link went to the Connecticut Huskies women's basketball team rather than a specific page about that season. While visiting the season page you might be interested in viewing the official page but it would be odd and awkward to expect the reader to find the link to the general team first and then navigate to the link to the official link. What possible harm occurs when we provide an official link to the team site? The theoretical harm is that if an official site is not the same as the subject material, the reader could potentially be misled. For example, if someone argued that the Connecticut women's basketball team is technically part of Connecticut and wanted to include the official link to the state of Connecticut that isn't likely to be the the site the reader would be interested in. In contrast, I can't ever imagine that someone viewing a particular season and navigating to the official link would be surprised that it is the site about all seasons for the team. I think we do a disservice by removing these links.-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  14:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:ELNO #13 recommends that a "general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked from an article on a more specific subject." I have no problem if the link to specific to the season (e.g. a stats link if stats are not already in the WP article)—Bagumba (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I have searched the archives of this page, and of WikiProject:College football and have noted this discussion that relates to this topic as closely as Jweiss claims this has been discussed before. (Most of the discussions related to whether it should be linked as a reference and whether it would be redundant to link CFBDW in the coach infoboxes [now defunct parameters] and on the bottom of the page).16:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)UCO2009bluejay (talk)

Navbox naming
Have I missed a discussion somewhere that decided to start using 'season' in the navbox naming? keeps adding this in the women's basketball navboxes, and is apparently too busy to respond to their talk page on this. (see here for an example) I asked a few days ago and after I asked, he still continued. I've started going through his contributions to move all of the templates to the right naming format. Thanks, Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 17:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * No you're correct, not Lewis. There should never be "season" in the name and I have no idea why he thinks there should be. TBH good luck getting him to reply, he's rarely ever responded to a message in his years of editing. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for confirming. I've noticed he doesn't respond, I've tried communicating with him before and got no response. I'll just take extra steps if needed. Thanks again, Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 20:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CIVIL: "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative ... and to be responsive to good-faith questions."  It's one thing to not respond and not continue the contested behavior, it's another to do whatever one wants despite requests to discuss.—Bagumba (talk) 08:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Any suggestions, ? I've already come here for confirmation, would next would be a noticeboard? I'm keeping an eye on the navbox creations from him. Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 22:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Noticeboard is justified if you have enough evidence that this is bad faith (e.g. habitually unresponsive, edit warring, etc). I haven't looked at the history of this at all.—Bagumba (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is one place I'd prefer to stay away from. It looks like they've had their fair share at noticeboards over the course of their time here, so I'm sure they don't want to go there again. If this continues, I'll figure something out! Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 22:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems to be repeat behavior of unresponsiveness from User_talk:Lewisthejayhawk. Shouldn't be too hard to get support from a noticeboard, if needed (though the specific "season" no longer seems to be an issue).—Bagumba (talk) 05:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

and it continues... Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 23:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Tables
has been adding these tables to several college athletic program articles (mostly those in the Mid-American Conference) and I wanted to see if there was any consensus for their addition that I wasn't aware of and any thoughts on them in general, particularly in removing the "Main article" links from subheadings for the individual sports. I obviously have my own opinions on them based on my edits to them (and my response to him), but wanted to get additional input from other interested users. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing how it's an improvement without further explanation from GWFrog. At the very least, listing the full article name makes it seem like a clumsy directory of Wikipedia articles.—Bagumba (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is nothing new; not something being done to, "...(mostly those in the Mid-American Conference)..." After a discussion some months ago, I was the one who undertook the task of ensuring that a sports/teams list would be on each DI school's athletics article... Most days, I add only one or two; some days, I add none, including a period of several weeks between my old computer crashing and my getting a new one... Prior to beginning on the MAC, the members of six other conferences had all been done, as well as all former members and all current and former affiliate/associate members of those conferences... somewhere around 1/4–1/3 of the 351 members of DI. (Yes, 6 of 32 conferences have less than 1/4–1/3 of the teams, but there are a LOT of former members and affiliate/associates...) GWFrog (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I can appreciate that you were bold and treated silence as a weak consensus; unfortunately, I am still not seeing a compelling rationale for adding this.—Bagumba (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – just fyi and, I asked for a link back in June 2015 about the "discussion" and this was GWFrog's answer. Jon, you had voiced your concerns then, too. Corkythe  hornetfan  (ping me) 01:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Table maybe, but not programs I personally don't like the bullets but I would like to see some sort of tabling. However, I do not like the format proposed by GW. Specifically in regards to the team article section. If a team has an article it should be listed in its own section with some prose (which most main program articles already do a decent job at.) I don't know but some articles link to institution's team within the section and some to the sport in general, and some to the "college" sport.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And Oklahoma Sooners mostly just has bullets with no link.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder! Doesn't look like my concerns have changed at all. I don't mind the concept of a table, but like, my issues are mainly the format and the placing, particularly the removal of "Main article" links in appropriate subheadings. Further, with the head coach column, that creates another bit of info that can quickly go out of date, especially for lesser-known programs and minor sports. My recommendation is a simple "team" or "sport" and "venue" columns (with a wikilink to the specific team article if it exists), but only in lesser-developed athletic department articles, or a partial table for the remaining sports not covered in subheadings, usually the sports like swimming, tennis, cross country, track, etc. An overall venue table for all department facilities after the sections on specific teams would serve the same purpose. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Option 1
Bulleted format used before now (Example Central Oklahoma)

Men's sports
 * Baseball
 * Basketball
 * Football
 * Golf
 * Wrestling

Women's sports
 * Basketball
 * Cross Country
 * Golf
 * Rowing
 * Soccer
 * Softball
 * Tennis
 * Indoor track and field
 * Outdoor track and field
 * Volleyball

Option 2
The "MAC format" (Example Buffalo)

Option 3
This table is a shortened version but links the sports (basically the current bulleted format but tabled) (Examples 3-5 Oklahoma)

Option 4
This table is a shortened version but links the sports and programs (perhaps a compromise)

Option 5
This table is a shortened version but links the program only.

Further discussion
Personally I like option 4 the best but I also like 3 or 5. I just don't like 1, or 2. Does anybody else have any suggestions?UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * IMO, Option 2 should be two separate tables using columns to separate them instead of a shaded column. It's just a stylistic thing, but rows in tables should all reflect the same "information". Note that Option 2 isn't necessarily my vote. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I prefer option 5. Option 1 is plain and boring, and Option 2 is a cluster f**k and takes too much space. I don't like Option 3 because I don't think the links should go to the general sports article, and Option 4 I'm O.K. with... but remove 'men's' and 'women's' from the links since it is already in the headers at the top. Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 21:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If we're going to goto tables over bullet points I would go with option 5 myself its clean and simple.-- Dcheagle   • talk • contribs 00:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree Option 5 is the best one. A separate facilities table also seems like a good idea. Billcasey905 (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Option 5, per Billcasey and all above. Things like coaches will fall out of date far too often, and we don't need general links like College basketball, College football, etc. cluttering up the tables. If there is no page for a specific program (ex. Oklahoma Sooners women's rowing), then just list the sport in the table in unlinked text. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * When I first began doing these---actually more like a couple of years ago than "...some months ago" I was using the format shown as "Option 1" with the listed sports linked to the college version (i.e.: [ [College football|Football] ] in place of [ [American football|Football] ], I also had  goto links in parentheses for any separate articles on the school's teams. The schools' secondary conferences were to be listed below, along with any notes like a sport being non-sanctioned by the NCAA. User:Dale Arnett substituted (team article) for the goto links, but nobody else jumped in to do the work, although there were probably two dozen or more participants in the discussion. I had probably done 10–12 conferences when one editor reverted all of the lists for an entire conference, replacing my listings with the one used on the conference pages and stating that what I had done looked too plain; that's when I went with "Option 2". A couple of people have mentioned coaching turnover as a potential problem, but I have seen very few articles where the coach is not current, even when the rest of the article is badly outdated, GWFrog (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Texas–Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Texas–Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros to be moved to UTRGV Vaqueros. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 04:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:College basketball teams in the NBA draft has been nominated for discussion
Category:College basketball teams in the NBA draft, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Grondemar 07:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:College basketball teams in the Women's National Basketball Association Draft has been nominated for discussion
Category:College basketball teams in the Women's National Basketball Association Draft, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Grondemar 07:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

1949-50 CCNY basketball team article
It needs a clean up. It's is neither neutral or professional. It reads more like a team media guide or even a mid-term paper than an encyclopedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC48:9910:F5B6:85D7:391A:AC87 (talk) 08:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You can be bold and try to clean it up yourself. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Color boxes in conference articles
I know a few, maybe most of you, know about the colors module. Over the past year, we Frietjes and I) have worked to incorporate the module into the infoboxes. We have now established college color boxes for the conference pages, and anywhere else it may be used. It is pretty simple, you type  and it will produce what is displayed in the infobox (i.e.   will produce ). I have started to incorporate these into the conference articles and will continue to do so over the next few days, as time allows. This message is to simply make everyone aware of this for future purposes. Thanks. Corkythe  hornetfan  (ping me) 03:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Can you add Rowan University's colors? Head coach Joe Crispin's infobox looks odd with the default coloring. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ See here. Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 04:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Jrcla2 (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Title of this project
Should the title of this project actually be "College basketball" with a lowercase b? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This archived talk page section shows the origin of why it's "Basketball" but I agree with you WikiOriginal-9, I've always felt this should be "College basketball" but have never cared enough to figure out how to systematically change it. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless someone comes along and opposes the move, I think that we should try and move it to the lowercase b. Some history merging or something would probably have to be done. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone would care if it were moved. An admin will need to be involved though. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on this
Please go to Articles for deletion/2015–16 Rhode Island Rams men's basketball team and help save a lot of 2015–16 pages from being deleted by a user whose page has exist for only today. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

IDKWTI
currently redirects to Eric Gordon, apparently referencing his recruitment to college basketball. However this is not mentioned in the article and so the redirect is being discussed at Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 21 where your input would be welcomed. Thryduulf (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Attempted deletion of women's team articles
Please see Appalachian State Mountaineers women's basketball, Arkansas State Red Wolves women's basketball, Georgia Southern Eagles women's basketball, and Coastal Carolina Chanticleers women's basketball. Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

RM for all NCAA tournaments from 1939 to 1981
Please see Talk:1981 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament if you would like to participate in the discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 10:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Mike Krzyzewski's record
We have a problem at Mike Krzyzewski. IPs keep backing out the seven games Krzyzewski's missed this season from his win–loss record. However, NCAA guidelines allow schools to make their own determination about who is the coach of record in situations like this one; see http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/ForSIDs/Policies.pdf. I traded emails with Cory Walton, sports info director at Duke. He has confirmed that Krzyzewski is the coach of record for all games this season, including the seven in which he was not on sideline. Should we protect the article? Jweiss11 (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I would just get the page protected. As a UNC fan, I can guarantee that this is happening because Duke famously made a big deal in 1994–95 that Pete Gaudet's 4-15 record when he filled in for K in the same circumstances should NOT be pinned on K. And that 4-15 record sits on Pete Gaudet's ledger. I guess it's a different scenario when the interim coach has a winning record. Rikster2 (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The IPs continue to attack the Krzyzewski article with their own invented record-keeping., , , , can we get some protection on the page? Jweiss11 (talk) 07:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there a past consensus on this? If not, I'd suggest making the consensus clear at Talk:Mike Krzyzewski, or link to discussion here and notify involved editors to reach one here.  We don't semi-protect to discourage good faith, bold edits.—Bagumba (talk) 11:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * DONE I put a limited requirement for registered users only, expires March 16. I also removed one disruptive edit on the talk page and notified the editor of its removal.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Bagumba, what sort of consensus does we need here? To report records are they are officially kept by the NCAA and then reported by reliable sources?  We can certainly reinforce this point on the talk page, but that won't solve the problem because IP editors don't read talk pages. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Most editors, IP or not, rarely look at talk pages before making a bold edit. However, you can point them to the prior consensus afterwards.  Further edits without consensus would be clear-cut edit warring.—Bagumba (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Flow of tournament brackets
I'd like to try to gain some consensus on how teams should be placed in tournament brackets as they proceed through each round.

My understanding has been that as tournament brackets are filled out, a logical flow from one round to the next is maintained as the team routing into the next game from the "top" of the bracket flow is placed in the top of the next matchup, while the team coming from the "bottom" is placed at the bottom. I found one brief discussion in the talk archives, and the behavior of nearly every other editor indicates to me  that this is indeed the consensus.

What appears to be a single editor disagrees, however, and has been repeatedly changing the brackets in cases where there has been an upset, "flipping" the pairing so that the higher seeded "home" team is always listed on top. This defeats the diagrammatic purpose of the brackets, breaking the logical flow of following how a team has progressed from one round to the next. The editor has even been going back to pages from conference tournaments in previous years and making these changes.

I raised the issue on the admin noticeboard to seek guidance, given that it's been a lot of work by multiple editors to undo these edits, and it was suggested that a stronger consensus was needed. So here I am. Any thoughts? WildCowboy (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Brackets should flow logically without flipping. It doesn't matter a whit which team is top or bottom, regardless of seed - the winner of a game just moves directly right. This is the logic that pretty much any reader is going to expect to see. Rikster2 (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Of course they should flow logically, without flipping to put the higher seed on top. Tewapack (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Why would anybody flip, it doesn't work on paper, it doesn't work on online brackets, and it shouldn't be flipped here.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't get it. And this user is so condescending and persistent, it's frustrating when you can't even start a discussion about the issue. Would love to continue to hear from other members to make sure there is a strong consensus on this to defend against this user's disruptive edits. WildCowboy (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Curiosity
Upon creating Spencer Weisz, I began wondering how common it is for someone to be named Conference POY who is neither a big scorer nor a big shot blocker. He is 4th on the 2016–17 Princeton Tigers men's basketball team in scoring and 22nd in the 8-team Ivy League (which would be like being 38th or 39th in the 14-team Big Ten or SEC or 41st in the 15-team ACC). He is 33rd in blocked shots.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Looks like we won running on an Analytics ticket. However, he's not even the best "sabermetrics" player on his team. That's Steven Cook (Ivy leaderboard). — X96lee15 (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Not common but not unheard of. When Chandler Parsons was the SEC POY he didn't have any eye-popping stats either, he was just an overall best player on an overall good team. Sometimes that's all it takes. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Steve Vacendak of Duke was the 1966 ACC POY but was second-team All-ACC (?) averaged 13 points and 4 rebounds a game. Jacque Vaughn won the Big 8 POY one year averaging about 10 PPG, but he was one of the country leaders in assists and was a top defender. Rikster2 (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

1st or 2nd round (round of 64)
I see updates by that are claiming the round of 64 is the first round now. I know how many pages that he does, so I want to make sure we are in agreement on what we want to do.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The round of 64 is the first round now. From 2011–2015 it was the second round. I thought we had this all figured out last year? Just look at the courts, they all say FIRST ROUND on the baseline. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 02:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * See this article from February 2016. João Do Rio (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Too much detail
Can objective eyes look at Derrick Walton to consider "In the first round of the 2017 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament Walton posted 26 points and 11 assists in a 92–91 victory over Oklahoma State. It marked the first time a player had had either at least 11 assists and 24 points or at least 25 points, 10 assists and 5 rebounds in an NCAA Division I tournament game since Dwyane Wade in 2003." Is this too much detail. Should I only state one of the two combinations?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association men's basketball coach navbox
Template:Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association men's basketball coach navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rikster2 (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Seeking assistance with template infobox college basketball tournament
Please see Template talk:Infobox college basketball tournament. Thanks Arbor to SJ (talk) 03:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

First Round vs First round
In the infobox and in the schedule table should the first and second rounds be listed as "First Round" or "First round"? Last season I tended to lowercase round but User:Lincolning has stated that they both should be capitalized because that is the official round name. I tend to agree with that, but have left round lowercase because that is what I'm use to and what I did last year. Can we get a consensus on this? For now I'm leaving round lowercase until I hear otherwise. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support First Round is the round name per NCAA, just like Sweet Sixteen, Elite Eight, etc. You wouldn't make it Sweet sixteen. Lincolning (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And would we do that for all tournaments? CIT, CBI, NIT? Bsuorangecrush (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to it, I don't think they have the name recognition and branding that the NCAA Tournament does however. Lincolning (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose: "First round" best conforms with WP:Capitalization - it is common usage and Wikipedia is not obligated to follow any "official" name the NCAA uses. Tewapack (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Going off of what Bsuorangecrush mentioned, terms like Elite Eight should certainly be capitalized because, per WP:Capitalization, they are trademarked. Capitalizing terms such as First Round or Second Round would help keep consistency.--Zachlp (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

You're invited...
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football regarding the issue of whether or not the navboxes in coaching articles should be collapsed or stay as is. Please comment there and not here. Thanks, Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 01:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Basketball images
At Talk:2017 McDonald's All-American Boys Game, I have posted some image galleries as I have done in years past. I could use some feedback on selecting the preferred image for each player. For many players this image will be their main image for a long time (over a half dozen players still have their 2013 McDonald's All-American Boys Game image as their main image). For others this image will be their main image at a time of high exposure (the top 3 players in the 2016 NBA draft and 2 of the top 3 in the 2015 NBA draft had MCDAAG images as their main image on draft day). Please help me choose the preferred image for the readers. If you like an image that seems to dark, I can do some post processing to improve the image.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

WPI Engineers basketball
I'm sure that WPI Engineers men's basketball navbox is unnecessary, as 99% of WPI's seasons are non-notable. I think WPI finished in the national top 25 at the historical equivalent to the Division I level a couple of times way back in the 1920s or 1930s (?). Does anyone know which specific seasons would pass notability? Jrcla2 (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Northern Illinois Huskies in which members of this WikiProject maybe interested in. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 20:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

NAIA Tournament Updates
As of May 2017:
 * NAIA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament all have articles created with brackets filled in. The process now is detailing and reinforcing with references. (1937-1960 have undergone a page scrub updating them to the project standards.)
 * NAIA Division II Men's Basketball has pages created from 2006-2017. (1992-2005 still need to be created.)
 * Both DI and DII Women's tournament need every year created.

A wish list item for the DI Men's tournament appearances: Main source: NAIA Results Thanks. Moonraker0022 (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC on sports notability
An RFC has recently been started regarding a potential change to the notability guidelines for sportspeople. Please join in the conversation. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Categories that cover men's and women's college basketball
There is a whole hierarchy of categories that combine men's and women's college basketball. These exist at the school level (e.g. (Category:Duke Blue Devils basketball) all the way up to Category:College basketball in the United States at the top. I propose that we eliminate these categories and have categories that deal only with men's or women's college basketball.  Yes, the men and women both play the same sport with a bouncy orange ball, but from an organizational standpoint, these are separate entities at the national, conference, and school level.  The Duke Blue Devils men's basketball program is as distinct from the Duke Blue Devils women's basketball program as it is from the Duke Blue Devils baseball program.  I believe that eliminating these mixed gender categories will allow us to better organize and navigate the college basketball content.  Thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with this, but I would point out that there are other sports like soccer, lacrosse and volleyball with the same issue. Seems like we ought to have a common structure for college sports that both genders play Rikster2 (talk) 11:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Another example of categorization that is true but not useful.  Not many men's basketball readers going to want to read about women's program, nor visa versa.—Bagumba (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with Rikster. Facilities (other?) are the overlap present in these parent cats, but it's a negative to have to jump up one level to access those. Consistency is the great issue issue in my view. So oppose removal of these parent cats unless we achieve consensus to do the identical work in the other dual-gender college sports such as golf, soccer, tennis, crew, lacrosse, volleyball, etc. UW Dawgs (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand the desire for consistency. Still, I'd argue it's better to be partially good then consistently bad.  Stuff always gets muddled when waiting for all projects to get on board.—Bagumba (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd advocate for the same in all the other dual-gender college sports as well. I figure it would make sense to start with basketball since it is far and away the most developed on Wikipedia and the only one with a dedicated WikiProject. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

AfD's for NCAA Division I basketball venues
Please see here and here. Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 09:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, will post at /Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of. We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
 * The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
 * The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
 * The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to for his original, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

ongoing insertion into new/non-standard "by team" categories
has resumed WP:DE which is hindering the project's category cleanup of their earlier changes (per above consensus) by again pushing UConn articles into their new "YYYY ... by team" categories:


 * 13:35, 30 May 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+62)‎ . . 1905–06 Connecticut Aggies men's basketball team ‎ (added Category:1905–06 in American college basketball by team using HotCat)
 * 13:36, 30 May 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+62)‎ . . 1906–07 Connecticut Aggies men's basketball team ‎ (added Category:1906–07 in American college basketball by team using HotCat) (current)
 * 13:36, 30 May 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+62)‎ . . 1907–08 Connecticut Aggies men's basketball team ‎ (added Category:1907–08 in American college basketball by team using HotCat) (current)
 * 13:36, 30 May 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+62)‎ . . 1910–11 Connecticut Aggies men's basketball team ‎ (added Category:1910–11 in American college basketball by team using HotCat) (current)
 * 13:37, 30 May 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+62)‎ . . 1911–12 Connecticut Aggies men's basketball team ‎ (added Category:1911–12 in American college basketball by team using HotCat) (current)
 * 13:37, 30 May 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+62)‎ . . 1912–13 Connecticut Aggies men's basketball team ‎ (added Category:1912–13 in American college basketball by team using HotCat) (current)
 * 13:37, 30 May 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+62)‎ . . 1914–15 Connecticut Aggies men's basketball team ‎ (added Category:1914–15 in American college basketball by team using HotCat) (current)
 * 13:38, 30 May 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+62)‎ . . 1915–16 Connecticut Aggies men's basketball team ‎ (added Category:1915–16 in American college basketball by team using HotCat) (current)

Are we headed to ANI given their refusal to discuss and attempt to change the current consensus? This resumption is our third episode accross the NBA and CBK projects and has clear WP:OWN and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT elements. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I thought you were ok with these seasonal categories and it was just conference categories you objected to being changed. These seasonal categories are fairly standard across Wiki sports categories. I have tried to engage in discussions and these have just led to other editors being abusive towards me. I have no interest in being disruptive but I strongly believe these college basketball categories needed tidying up. Why do have a problem with this ? Djln Djln (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I am only the fourth and most-recent editor involved in cleanup by reverting some of those CBK cat changes, while other cat changes seem valid and remain intact. You are encouraged to make your case for supplemental "by team" categorization in another Talk section if that is indeed your proposal, but I decline to guess or make the proposal on your behalf. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Really sorry. I did not realise I had to ask your permission to edit Wikipedia. Obviously I was mistaken. Djln Djln (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You are mistaking consensus for permission. And please don't equate someone not agreeing with you as their being "abusive" or "hostile".  Per the policy No personal attacks: "Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki."  Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please spare me the lecture. Check your facts before making such ridiculous statements. I have encountered racist abuse and bullying tactics here, all for just trying to tidy up some categories. There is clear evidence on this and other discussion pages. Djln Djln (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Royce White NBL Canada MVP details
It is my understanding that Royce White has become the NBL Canada MVP. I can't find the official press release to see how close the vote was and who the other contenders were. If you can help me, drop a note at Talk:Royce_White.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Please join the conversation...
and I are currently in a discussion with AnneMorgan88 where she is not accepting anyone's opinions but. We need your help on building a consensus at Talk:Northern Illinois Huskies... It is the same issue we dealt with at Talk:Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns. Thanks, Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 18:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

IMMEDIATE HELP NEEDED - PLEASE READ
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents – please chime in, this user is single-handedly ruining this WikiProject's categorization structure! Jrcla2 (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If I may ask a question? Are there intercollegiate basketball programs outside of North America? I think that is the editor's only point, (although y'all went thermonuclear, and calling someone a racist is just plain wrong.) Yes, I believe if he would have simply discussed the issue we could have figured out a way for this to perhaps place this in a more global perspective without having to look at disruption of teams, conference cats among other things. I disagree with all of the moves, as it has needlessly disrupted conference, division, and team categories. Unless I am wrong on his intent, a discussion could place the number of edits needed at just over 100 instead of the several thousand that his edits would take. But I want to make sure that I know what everyone is doing before I make my suggestion.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

,, . In my opinion American college basketball categories are extremely over categorised and are a complete a mess, totally un-navigatable by anybody except by the self proclaimed experts on the topic here. This makes it virtually impossible for other editors/readers to find articles. All I have tried to do was tidy them up. For example at the category "Athletic League of New England State Colleges men's basketball seasons" there are 20 subcategories each containing just one article. This is frankly ridiculous. There are dozens if not hundreds of other similar examples. I never intended to cause anybody any grief. I have tidied up similar categories across various sports and I can't really see what the issue is here. I still can't days later. Nobody has offered a proper explanation. All I planned to do was merge these categories into more easy to navigate categories based on "XXXX-XX in American college basketball" and/or "XXXX-XX in American college basketball by team" format. I think this was perfectly acceptable and in no way was it "disputive editing". I am still somewhat shocked and flabberghasted at what UCO2009bluejay described as the "thermonuclear" reaction I recieved. As soon as I realised the reaction I caused, I stopped editing American college basketball categories. I attempted to explain my actions but I subsequently recieved vitriolic abuse from two editors, some of which in my opinion was "borderline racist". To add insult to injury I was then blocked which in my opinion was outrageous and a totally OTT reaction. In my decade plus expericence editing Wiki I have never seen anything like it. It would have been nice to have been invited to defend myself before I was blocked. From what I can see I was blocked for expressing an opinion which some other editors disagreed. I did not realise editors were not allowed express a reasonable opinion. I also note that two editors are now inappropriately emptying perfectly legitimate categories I created, will they blocked for "disputive editing" ? Probably not. Djln Djln (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF. The college projects have a consistent categorization hierarchy of "Org" (NCAA, NAIA, etc) > "Divison" (Div I/II/III) > "Conference" (SEC, Pac-12, etc) > Team. In your example of Category:Athletic League of New England State Colleges men's basketball seasons (possibly 1897-1922) you note that only Category:Connecticut Huskies men's basketball seasons articles are present.  Only Connecticut articles have been created to date within that conference. GNG aside, if we remove conference (and rollup to division?), there would be ~300 team articles for many recent years.  And at the conference level, we have conference-specific articles which are appropriately categorized at the conference level.  So your example does not seem to be a strong basis for a global repeal of the established categorization structure for all years/teams/sports. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not remove any articles from NCAA, NAIA categories. If you check you will find I added to these. Seriously what are the chances of other articles joining the Connecticut articles in these categories ? The rest of your answer is just jibberish and you have not answered any of the issues I raised. DjlnDjln (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Charming. I am done. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * : I'm not sure what you thought was gibberish in UW Dawgs comment above. For American college sports, season articles are generally categorized by their conference, and those conferences are then rolled up by association, generally either National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) or National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) or a subdivision of one of those associations.  Let me point you to a particularly instructive example that might drive home the issue with your edits.  Take 1906–07 Wisconsin Badgers men's basketball team for example.  Here you removed Category:1906–07 Western Conference men's basketball season and replaced it with Category:1906–07 in American college basketball by team.  Category:1906–07 Western Conference men's basketball season should in fact roll up into an NCAA category.  Note than the NCAA was known as Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the United States (IAAUS) from its inception in 1906 until taking is current name in 1910.  Category:1906–07 Western Conference men's basketball season is one of 120 categories that exist in Category:Big Ten Conference men's basketball seasons and those categories are substantially populated.  The men's basketball categories and articles also exist in parallel with the contents of Category:Big Ten Conference football seasons, which is fully populated—we have an article for every single team season in Big Ten Conference football history.  Can you see why blowing away the categorization under Western Conference / Big Ten Conference is problematic? Jweiss11 (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Based upon Djln's response I guess I was wrong with what was my AGF that isn't to say that I think he is a bad editor, but to call our existing categorization jibberish is just plain nonsense, and shows bad faith in discussion. By outright disrespecting prior consensus without any thought to the methodology behind this, he clearly shows an unwillingness to come to terms with a proper discussion about the merits, or flaws in the established system. I don't have an issue with the American college basketball in this instance, but to place it in the UCONN, Wisconsin, and deleting any reference to conferences is wrong as Jrcla2, et. al. believe it is. I thought it was just to place it with any other nation's intercollegiate athletics, and I was wrong. Y'all I don't believe this editor based upon the responses above is willing to seriously discussing our methods and the objections of other editors is completely valid. He doesn't care about our system of categorization, doesn't want to know about American college basketball which these categories would actually help people more easily find this year's UNCs, and Dukes rather than have it be bogged down amongst the 300 other D-I teams such as UNC Wilmingtons of the world. In conclusion, to anybody who reads this with a(n) (dis)interest in American college basketball should know that it is a taxonomic system for a reason. And to my fellow editors in the projects should know that I only thought he was trying to add a category to make it more international to grow the tree to include the Berlin Polytech's of the world (but no American would ever check that.) Based upon his answer it is clear he wants to unilaterally adjust all of our established schema. And at the rate he is going, I will read his personal attack below.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay he might actually discuss, but there is a good chance that other teams will eventually fill the UCONN category, but that still doesn't explain Wisconsin.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As the editor has refused to substantively discuss similar bold edits within the NBA project at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association, those NBA category edits have now been reverted. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Jrcla2 as point of escalation has now retired in protest. What's your view of the path forward on the significant changes made to CBK categorization? UW Dawgs (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The path forward is to revert any problematic categorization edits by Djln and maintain the status quo. Djln is a long way from building a consensus behind his edits. He hasn't even replied to my comments above regarding conferences. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Based on the above, the scope of the keep/expand vs revert discussion seems to surrounds edits which removed independents and conference affiliated  teams from their existing parent ind or conf cat and into Category:YYYY–YY in American college basketball .  Reverting these conference changes makes sense to me as this clearly breaks the existing consensus implementation.  Defer to  if they wish to make the case for additional placement of teams in these new annual "by team" cats (Category:1905–06 in American college basketball by team) as seen in NFL and NHL cat implementations. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * To the best of my belief, this needless mess now has been fully reverted. YMMV UW Dawgs (talk) 02:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Infobox college basketball team
FYI – I was bold and the   field to the infobox for college basketball programs. I based off of this discussion (even though there were three responses). I feel it is necessary to add this field, matching the NCAA football infobox. If others disagree, I'll be glad to discuss. Thanks, Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 00:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Suppport. 1) Have made ADs a personal pet project and this aligns with that.  More eyes and display locations = more accuracy. 2) Template:Infobox NCAA football school has some dubious properties (marching band!) not present in the other college sports infoboxes. Those inconsistencies are bad, but perhaps best resolved via wiki data and then updates to all of these templates. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)